Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/O'Neill Sea Odyssey


 * 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 keep and oh yeah, bless Qarnos. :) &mdash; Nearly Headless Nick   {C}  14:17, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

O'Neill Sea Odyssey

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Advertising for a youth program. The fact that the organization is non-profit and the program is free doesn't change the fact that this article is basically non-neutral boosterism, extolling what a great thing it is. The only third-party source indicating that anyone outside the organization is even aware of its existence is an award granted by Barbara Boxer. That's nice, but it's not enough to build an encyclopedia article around. —Angr 07:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Conditional keep - I think there is potential for an article on this subject. A google search returns quite a few hits, and a lot of them seem to be non-affiliated sites. But, as it stands, the article is terrible (eg: talking about the subject in first-person). It essentially needs to be blanked and given a complete re-write. I can't commit to anything right now, but if I can find some time this weekend I will take a crack at coming up with an alternative. -- Qarnos 07:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Conditional keep per Quarnos  Kamope  ·  talk  ·  contributions   12:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as advert., non encyclopedic. --MaNeMeBasat 15:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The article is an advert and needs a serious overhaul.  However, I believe it does meet the notability guidelines by virtue of Sen Boxer's award, the Governor's award and media coverage  .-- Kubigula (talk) 00:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Changing to strong keep after Qarnos' re-write. Well done.-- Kubigula (talk) 14:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment. I have completely re-written the article as a stub. All unsourced information and advertising has been removed and replaced with verifiable content, fully referenced. -- Qarnos 07:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Great, it looks a lot better now. —Angr 07:32, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That looks more like an encyclopedia. Thanks.  Dhaifley 14:18, 13 February 2007 (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.