Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of Arizona

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus, defaulting to keep. While all of the criticisms of the current article (unreferenced, POV, OR, peacocky) are legitimate, none of those is a deletion rationale. Frank makes the case that, well, other stuff exists, and there was no real reasoning presented as to why a policy-compliant article on this subject couldn't be created. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Culture of Arizona

Culture of Arizona (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

This article is full of broad, sweeping generalizations that are horoscope-like in their vagueness and unverifiability. I do not see how this can be taken seriously as an encyclopedia article. CosineKitty (talk) 01:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment - I know that other stuff exists is a poor reason to consider keeping an article, but I'm providing this comment nevertheless. I agree that this article - as it stands - is peacocky at best, and it is not sourced. However, there do exist articles on similar subjects that are more substantial and encyclopedic: Culture of California and Culture of Texas are two states near Arizona, for example. Perhaps this could be tagged for improvement instead?  Frank  |  talk  02:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete No sources at all, the definition of original research; this seems to be someone's musings about why he or she thinks that Arizona is special (ideal vacation spot, called by some "a kind of paradise", nice weather, so tolerant that it's a "purple state" that's neither red nor blue)... I've been to Arizona, and it is a nice place, at least in January Mandsford (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a worthwhile topic. However the article as it is has little information and some stuff that doesn't relate. Sorry. I have spent some time there too I found it a wonderful state. Even in summer --- it's a dry heat. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 04:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, speculation, borderline POV, not sourced. JIP | Talk 05:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, seems like it would be pretty easy to hammer into a sourced stub. --Dhartung | Talk 08:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Seems like a noteworthy subject. I would much rather see this improved than deleted. Unsourced, but not unsalvageable. --Bongwarrior (talk) 09:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete A7 - this article makes no effort to explain the notability of its undefinable subject. Townlake (talk) 14:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Delete Whoops, not an A7 category. So I'll fall back on the overwhelming POV / OR problems with the article. Townlake (talk) 05:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete POVish and full of OR, and it's unreferenced. Reads more like a travler's guide than an encyclopediac article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:20, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - it says nothing (verifiable) that Arizona does not already cover. The fact that there are 0 sources for this article should stick out like a sore thumb. An article of this topic is conceptually feasible, but unless it can be demonstrated that a useful article that actually expands upon - not merely regurgitates in essay form - the information already available in the state's article, there is no reason to keep. Arkyan 19:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete: unsourced, vague pseudoinformation. No WP:RSs establishing Arizona as having a culture distinct from neighbouring states, let alone a notable one. HrafnTalkStalk 10:44, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. Nothing more than pseudo-information and loads of original research. (jarbarf) (talk) 23:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - a perfectly good stub. Needs RS. Bearian (talk) 00:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.