Talk:The Greenie House

Deletion of this article

Support

1. I Support it's deletion for the same reason as stated in the proposal to delete. --Knowledge13 05:40, 19 June 2008 (PDT)
2. Yeah, I agree with Knowledge and Belthazar, we should delete this unless someone is going to update and/or clean it up because right now it really isn't needed on Ypp. So if anything we can just delete it now and if it's so import for it to be on Ypp someone will maybe put it back up with decent information. --Crfandy 22:34, 8 July 2008 (PDT)
3. The article subject got OM disapproval and this article is unlikely to provide any useful encyclopedic-esque information. --Sagacious ^(talk) 02:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

You're going to have to show this OM disapproval you're pointing out. --Thunderbird 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

According to this post it's not so much disapproval as lack of claimed approval. That and the thread is locked. --Belthazar451 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Oppose

1. You're going to have to direct me to the policy that says a cleanup tag staying on a page for an extended length of time is a reason for deletion. --Fannon 10:48, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

Not so much a reason for deletion as a reason that noone would notice if it did get deleted. Basically, if noone cares enough to ensure that the page is actually informative, then is it notable enough to remain on the wiki? All I know about this event is what's in the linked forum thread, and it seems a bit silly to just copy the forum thread vertabim. --Belthazar451 15:19, 19 June 2008 (PDT)

1. Cleanup tag is not enough reason for a deletion, even if it's been here for a year and a half. Scant content isn't either. In fact, I'm questioning why the cleanup tag is even here, because "needs more information" isn't really a valid reason for needing a cleanup tag, that's what stub is for. Faulkston? --Thunderbird 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
2. Information available for improvement, unfortunately no-one's bothered yet. Deletion should always be the last resort. YPPedia is a historical record, as well as an information centre. Hell, I'll write the thing if needs be. --Featherfin 14:20, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Why does this page need cleanup anyway? It IS a stub, but thats about it. and as far as I know, there is no rule against being a stub. And if it hasn't happened in 1 1/2 years, why is that a reason to delete the page? Then it just needs all present tense turned to past tense, which is something anyone can do...--Patato6 02:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I've made clear enough my reasons for proposing the deletion. It's not so much a lack of information - which is difficult enough to rectify this late in the game - as a lack of notability. I realise we've largely removed the notability requirements for pirate pages, but last I checked, it still holds for normal pages.

Yep, it's an event. I think. Did the event run? What was it? Who was there? Who ran it? Did anyone win the competitions? Are there any notable pirates around now who benefited from this event? And here's the big one: is anyone ever going to answer these questions after a year and a half? If not, why do we want to hold onto a page that contains all of eighteen words and no notable information? (Mind you, one could always ask "why delete it?" but I'm not going to be playing both sides of the fence.) =)

So far, the oppositions I've seen are simply "not reason enough to delete". But where's the reasoning to keep it? --Belthazar451 05:57, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to note that there is plenty of information about the event on the linked page. The YPPedia policy has always aimed to improve and expand articles where possible, rather than simply deleting them. There is not a scarcity of information in this case, and I think rather than deleting it surely it would be more productive, and within the spirit of the YPPedia, for someone to take ten minutes to expand the article. --Featherfin 14:14, 9 July 2008 (UTC)