Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tipping by region


 * 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 k e ep. east. 718 at 08:25, December 22, 2007

Tipping by region

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Was created as a fork from Tip. Delete per WP:NOT. Most content unreferenced or poor quality references. Barrylb (talk) 21:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom Seems like something more befitting of a travel brochure than an encyclopedia entry. Egdirf (talk) 21:53, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Lots of notability and sources. WP:NOT is being over-interpreted - info is equally useful to natives, economists and sociologists. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:15, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't get too excited by looking at the references section and seeing "lots" of sources. When you actually look at the sources they are poor quality. For example the article at the Sydney Morning Herald is simple quoting a website tipping.org which I wouldn't say is a reliable source. Also look at how many statements are not backed up by any references. Not sure what you mean by "lots of notability". Barrylb (talk) 03:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The quality of sources will not be improved by deletion. As ever, AFD is not cleanup.  I am confident that there are good quality sources.  For example, some tax authorities have official policies about this and so there will be tax codes and case law.  And, as this affects millions of workers and consumers, the notability seems evident.  Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As creator of the fork, I was hoping we could give it some time add additional sources and remove any dubious or unverified information. Perhaps one day, if this article was polished up to an acceptable state, it could be reincorporated into the main Tip article.  If after, say, a few months no improvement seemed forthcoming, I would support its deletion.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 23:09, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wanted the main article to discuss the subject, why fork a new article in the first place? Why not simply improve the main article itself, removing unverifiable or badly sourced content and replacing it with properly sourced good content?  The way to fix bad content is not to sweep it under the rug by hiving off separate articles.  See "In popular culture" articles for the loop that that causes.  The way to fix bad content is to clean it up where it stands, mercilessly wielding the swords of Verifiability and No original research. Uncle G (talk) 02:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I hear what you're saying. Being a very lazy and unproductive editor--and seeing the same tendencies in many others--I often have very low expectations that a certain problematic sections will eventually be made presentable.  In my mind, I calculated a 7.8% chance that this content would ever be salvaged, but I certainly didn't want to do the thorough and tedious salvaging myself and didn't expect anyone else to do so in the near future. The section was becoming a bloated eyesore on the tip article, so I boldly took it out.   I moved it here just in case someone more industrious than I wants to fix it.  If so, great--but if not, I didn't want it hanging about a moderately high-traffica article causing clutter indefinitely.  I don't expect you to approve of this rather pessimistic editing philosophy, but it does help keep crap out of articles, to some degree.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 05:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep (although Merge to "Tip" would be just as good an option). The customs for rewarding service are just as much a part of culture as other forms of etiquette Mandsford (talk) 04:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you are arguing Keep because it is a notable subject, that is not in dispute. Barrylb (talk) 05:21, 16 December 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.