Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beach bum (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. JForget 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Beach bum
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

This article was first nominated for deletion back in 2005. The result was a keep, but significant issues were raised during that AFD. These issues remain uncorrected 5 years later, and I have significant doubts that the article will ever amount to anything more than a dictionary stub. Furthermore the article has remained unreferenced for a similar length of time. I recommend that we delete the article at this time based on the lack of references, lack of encyclopedic nature, and the potential for the article to develop into a collection of trivia rather than a true article. Triona (talk) 22:46, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 22:52, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination. This article is ridiculous. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 00:11, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, besides which the definition of this one is so vague. Please check out Surf culture if you are interested in the topic. Borock (talk) 02:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We had a whole area of the planet that we didn't cover for five years. It was .  Five years is not unusual, nor some magic cutoff point.  Neither, moreover, is lack of work by volunteer editors indicative of anything at all with respect to a subject.  I also recommend reading the policy being cited.  It explains the difference between a dictionary article and an encyclopaedia article.  This is a stub encyclopaedia article, purportedly about a subculture.  It's only deletable, per deletion policy, if there's no possibility for the stub to be expanded into an actual substantial article.  Interestingly, there is such a possibility to be considered here.  Journalist and author Boye Lafayette De Mente has written about the beach bums of Hawaii, at some length, in ISBN 9780914778608, providing both a clear definition of what a beach bum is, and a typology of beach bums.  And there are several other sources to be found, Borock, as well as organizations such as the USSA, that would take you to task for asserting that surfers and beach bums are the same thing.  &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Interesting take on things Uncle G, but in the end if the article is not sourced it still needs to be deleted. We do have policy on that for good reason.   JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 07:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Your understanding of Deletion policy is wrong. You need to re-read the policy.  Actual policy is as stated above. Uncle G (talk) 13:36, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * My understanding of verifiability and no original research policy is quite right, and yes we do regularly delete material which is not backed by reliable third party publications, preferably using an inline format. If no one cares to do that in this instance then the article should be deleted.  We are not working on a deadline, but at the same time should be striving to provide informative and reliably sourced content to our readers.  You and I may disagree on the finer points of how that is accomplished.  JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 16:21, 27 July 2010 (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.