Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Party service


 * 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. Missvain (talk) 22:25, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Party service
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log )

There article serves no real purpose. First it describes an event planner, then it justs lists party supplies and entertainers. "Party service" also does not seem to be a widespread term. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:52, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Party planning is a worthy topic, but at the moment it just redirects to this article. There's nothing here that can be salvaged, so WP:TNT it. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. fails GNG lacks significant coverage. Peneplavím (talk) 04:03, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Back in 2006, a single editor within the space of 1 hour created Party Services, party service, party services, party planning, and party planner as multiple largely identical copies of the same article, complete with advertising contact information. At Articles for deletion/Party Services it was decided on party service as the name, and a modicum of cleanup was done.  This is why this isn't at Clarityfiend's party planning. If that's a worthy topic, then that's an argument for simply switching to the copy at party planning.  The idea that, per Peneplavím above, that none of these five has significant coverage seems directly contradicted by Clarityfiend's immediately preceding assertion that at least one of them is a worthy topic, and that people simply picked the wrong one of the group back in 2006.  I agree, after a quick look around, that at least one of party planning or party planner is a topic, whether distinct or not from event planning and event planner.  Given that books like ISBN 9781451612608 document what party planning journals are, for starters, I suspect that there is a distinction from event planning which the article at hand does not make clear, it having started out as an advertisement.  The "Planning the Perfect Party" article in the 1979 San Diego Magazine seems to be worth further research, as it is a book review of Jeanne Jones's Party Planner & Entertaining Diary and from snippets seems to discuss the actual concept of party planning itself.  Unfortunately, I have no access to it. This article seems to just need more, a lot more, cleanup than the simple removal of advertising that was in the 2006 AFD discussion.  Interestingly, from the partial view of ISBN 9780931411335 that I can see, its chapter on "Basic Party Planning" might be the source of a good stub. Uncle G (talk) 08:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you think party planning should have an article, then go ahead and write it, but there is nothing worth saving from this article.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:10, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite the converse. If you think that party planning and party planners should not have an article then the onus is on you to provide a reason based in Project:deletion policy for deleting our five available edit histories for such an article.  Most of the introduction of the article at hand is about party planners.  ("A party or event planner is [&hellip;]. Party planners [&hellip;]. Party planners can [&hellip;]").  Uncle G (talk) 16:34, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but WP:ONUS has always been on the person adding content. There is nothing of value in the edit histories of these articles anyway. I'm sure a much better three sentence introduction can be written for a new article. I certainly wouldn't reuse this one.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:31, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your grasp of Project:deletion policy remains as erroneous as it has been in other AFD discussions, despite your having been told this again and again. The onus is on you to show that a thorough search for sources fails.  And given that a search for sources clearly finds stuff, as I've cited one such above and a potential second, you have a difficult problem.  Especially as it appears from your rationales that you haven't bothered to put any effort into looking for sources at all, let alone made a thorough search.  Please get a grasp of what policy actually is, and put it into practice.  It has been policy for almost 20 years now.  Uncle G (talk) 02:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Here we go again. As per WP:ONUS and WP:BURDEN, the responsibility lies with the person who created the article. My responsibility before nomination is only to do a search (which I did), not to prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that sources don't exist.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Now, let's talk about this particular article. The article is about a "party service" which is a type of a company. The topic is not "party planning" which is the act of planning a party which is something that can be done by either a professional company or by anyone else. Just because some clown copied and pasted this article to "party planning" 15 years ago does not mean the two topics are now one. Now you come up with sources for "party planning" and are trying to tell me that its the same thing. And what is it from this article's edit history that is so valuable? Is it the poorly written lead or the list of things that can be found at parties?--Rusf10 (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2021 (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.