Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adventure


 * 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. — Jake   Wartenberg  00:50, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Adventure

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is not really encylepedic it has more definition which is more apporpate for a dictionary Mschilz20 (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - more suitable for Wiktionary. Most of the article, while interesting, is pure original research. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: It should be obvious due to the fact that the sole reference is its entry in a dictionary. GreyWyvern (talk) 17:05, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as dicdef, unsourced OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. It seems like a simple concept such as this would have more sources. Maybe I'll track some down. In any event, this shouldn't be a red link - but where would we redirect it? UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A soft redirect to Wiktionary seems like a good target. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment It might be interesting to note that the Encyclopedia Britannica has (at one point, anyway) included an "Adventure" entry: . That may have been part of the motivation for creating the wiki page(which has existed for over 8 years!) I don't think WP:NOTDICT really applies; "adventure" is a very broad concept which could be covered in an encyclopedic fashion. Maybe something like this could be useful. Zagalejo^^^ 01:58, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is our editing policy to keep and improve imperfect articles rather than to delete them. I had no difficulty adding a good source on sensation seeking behaviour to the article and there are numerous other aspects of this highly notable topic to develop.  Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep this article has a lot of WP:Potential I can see how it can be improved extensively. Ikip (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, a magnet for every kind of OR and vandalism, but not a topic that can be covered sufficiently in a dictionary. Comments such as "Paragliding has been popular for being adventurous" should be deleted right away, to set the right tone. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It is better to tag debatable statements for attention first. I had no difficulty finding a good source to support the statement about paragliding.  Colonel Warden (talk) 12:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per Scjessey. WP:OR concerns, more suited to wikidictionary. Bravedog (talk) 11:04, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and improve. There is a significant literature, for example, on the psychology of adventure and risk-taking, which eventually this article I imagine could cover. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * BTW - if the consensus is delete, could you give me a heads up and I'll import to Wikiversity since philosophy of adventure is a standar part of outdoor education and we're developing materials in that area. -- Jtneill - Talk 11:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete It's more like a collection of definitions then a collection of encyclopaedic information. Martarius (talk) 12:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: It only became anything like a collection of links after it seems a recent merger of content from adventurer. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:31, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It is, indeed, currently a mish-mash. I suggest the odd list of "adventurers" is a failing here, and that it couldwell dwellon the "why" of adventure a bit more. Collect (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep but undo the merge and put some content back at Adventurer.   D r e a m Focus  18:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment' FWIW, the old EB article was about a rather different concept--ione not even mentioned here. ,    DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:NOT and WP:DICT.--RekishiEJ (talk) 19:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Really I have no idea why broad and notable subjects like this are brought to AfD when so much else exists that needs to be cleaned out of here. This is exactly the type of topic that one would expect in a paper encyclopedia and we have to cover the basics before we think of approaching the realms of more specialized encyclopedias.  Also, per Piano non troppo.  Them  From  Space  21:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aside from WP:NOTPAPER, even Britannica, a notable paper (and online) encyclopedia, does not have an article specifically for "Adventure", at least the last time I checked. Grey Wyvern ⚒ 18:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs to be enhanced not removed. :: Kevinalewis  : (Talk Page) /(Desk)  10:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I came to this page looking for information on "Adventure" as a literary genre. The page I was looking for was actually Adventure novel. Perhaps these articles can be merged? 208.47.211.5 (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input. As I see it, this should be the top-level article in a tree, outlining the general concept of adventure and then providing an introduction to related detailed topics like adventure tourism, adventure playgrounds, adventure fiction, etc, which would be dealt with in separate articles too. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:04, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I like Colonel Warden's conceptualisation of what contributors to this article could strive towards. I've added at least some reference now to adventure novel. Also, not sure if this is relevant, but there's over 1,000 WP links to this page: Special:WhatLinksHere/Adventure. -- Jtneill - Talk 14:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep This is the stupidest thing I have ever seen in all my time on Wikipedia. We don't delete articles because they are in rough shape I believe that is a core principle of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is a huge base of knowledge, and we should not be deleting articles on huge topics. There are to many topics that are related to adventure, that it would not be suitable for Wikitionary. It is just to complicated a term for a simple definition. This is nonsense.-- Gordonrox24 &#124; Talk 16:25, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This is the kind of article that raises quality on most wikipedias. It is beyond me that this is considered in need for deletion. GerardM (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2009 (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.