Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warm Showers


 * 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 d e lete. east. 718 at 08:57, February 1, 2008

Warm Showers

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Disputed prod (removed around 30 minutes before time was up) - this still does not appear to meet WP:WEB, the original concern, and borders on WP:SPAM. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Disputed prod (whereby an editor thinks an article should be deleted but it doesn't quite fall under the speedy deletion criteria but it's too insignificant to make it to articles for deletion. The article does not assert sufficient notability for a website per our notability criteria for a website.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment It is only 12:30 here in Québec city sir. Can you help me put the article as a nomination for inclusion instead of trying to delete it ? Regards, Roger Gravel (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, I work on UTC I'm afraid! Oh, and as for inclusion, you need to make it meet WP:WEB.  It reads like an advert and asserts no notability.  You've had quite a few days to sort this out - removing the prod without addressing the concern will lead to the inevitable conclusion of an WP:AFD I'm afraid.  Nothing personal, that's how it goes. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you. 5 days is nothing here under snow. You are showing me the door to deletion and the WP:WEB.  I am not en encyclopdist nor a brain policeman.  I am comparing Warm Showers with Lesbian_and_Gay_Hospitality_Exchange_International and with  Hospitality_Club and I don't see why ours is deleted.  If you can give us more time please do; if not, well : fare well.  Roger Gravel (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - you have until this process finishes to improve the article to meet the notability criteria for a website on Wikipedia as defined in our policy WP:WEB. Just as an aside, there's an essay called WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS which says that you ought not point at other articles which currently reside within Wikipedia that are equally as deficient as this one and say "Well, what's the difference between article X and this one?".  It's genuinely nothing personal but unless the article meets the current policies of notability and verifiability with reliable sources to ensure website notability is achieved and proven, this article must be deleted.  The Rambling Man (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 *  Keep  (now No Opinion) - until the nominator adopts a non-cryptic nomination: avoid cryptic language. Tarinth (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Rewritten nom.  The Rambling Man (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No claim in article of meeting WP:Notability. 0 hits in Google News, first several pages of gsearch give lots of hits for this group, but none are showing notability (many are forum posts by Roger Gravel). Absolutely no prejudice against recreation if the notability issues are addressed. --Fabrictramp (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't meet WP:NOTE or WP:WEB as no reliable sources are cited and there's no claim of any notability. --Nick Dowling (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - a quick search of Google seems to suggest that this organization is well-known enough that it could become a good article. If it does end up getting deleted, I don't think anyone should object to a re-create of the article that includes better sourcing. Tarinth (talk) 00:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete The article is currently in no kind of state to merit keeping. There's barely an assertion of notability (just about enough to preclude speedy, but not enough for here) and no sources. Several editors, including myself have dropped the originator notes about what needs to be done to improve it, but he seems reluctant to read the policies. We all know that Wikipedia is a bemusing place for newbies, but they must at least show willing, not just the completely understandable irritation. NB I completely agree with Tarinth's comment, just above and I'd be happy to recreate the article from deletion to userspace of any editor who requests the opportunity to work it up. --Dweller (talk) 10:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely does not meat WP:WEB if and when notability can be established this article should be rewritten. --/\sSb\/TALK/\-- 07:23, 30 January 2008 (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.