Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waterworld, Hamilton


 * 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. There seems to have been no refutation of the argument that the coverage is not significant enough and there is no clear merge target, if someone wants to do a merge somewhere drop me anote on my talkpage and we can discuss undeleteing Spartaz Humbug! 03:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Waterworld, Hamilton

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I don't think this swimming pool meets the notability standard. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me  04:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete References and anything else I find at google doesn't amount to anything substantial. Mostly trivial, short articles and travel-and-tourism spam.  -- Jayron  32  05:00, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Whilst it doesn't look too notable, I note that firstly, there's a merge tag on the article, and secondly, the article's creator (Adabow), who would be the most likely person to undertake such a merge (if deletion is indeed the consensus), is on wikileave until xmas. As such, can you give him a chance to action this upon his return before any deletions go through?  Schwede 66  05:24, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Wrong on several points. The merge tag has been there since 2008, and Adabow has edited the article since then.  It's not the responsibility of the article's creator to perform mergers.  Anyone can perform mergers, even Dondegroovily.  If the consensus is to delete, then content cannot be merged.  Article merger requires keeping the article. Uncle G (talk) 12:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I would have done it if I felt this topic was worthy D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  17:29, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't know about that. If there is referenced, relevent content which belongs in other articles, I don't see the harm in preserving it.  -- Jayron  32  14:32, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Uncle G, I don't think you got what I mean. I never questioned that the merge tag has been there for a long time. I'm aware that Adabow has edited the article since the merge tag was placed. I'm fully aware that it isn't Adabow's responsibility to perform the merge. What I'm suggesting is to simply slow down a little, let Adabow come back from wikileave, and if the decision is for this article to be deleted, let him have a chance to take relevant content and put it into the other article. He may not bother, but I'm suggesting that we should give him the chance. You are, however, quite wrong when you say that content cannot be merged if the decision is to delete this article. Where did you get that from? The article will be deleted if the consensus is that it's not notable. But that doesn't mean that some of the content couldn't be used with other articles.  Schwede 66  00:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I got it from the requirements of our copyright licences. Please familiarize yourself with them.  You appear to be dangerously unfamiliar.  Merger requires keeping.  Deletion precludes use of the content anywhere else.  It's as simple as that.  Please familiarize yourself with the requirements imposed upon you and everyone else by the copyright licences that this project operates under.  Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * WP:MAD explains things further. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, deleting this article doesn't mean that "Waterworld" can never be mentioned again in any article ever? That is not what you are stating, is it?  It's not like the concept becomes "dead to us".  If one were to use some of the references in this article, for example, to write original text in, say, the main Hamilton, Ontario article about Waterworld, that's fine, so long as actual text from the deleted article isn't copy-pasted into the other article.  Just asking for a clarification here.  -- Jayron  32  19:31, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You're correct. Deleting this would mean that none of the text of this article could be used elsewhere, so it couldn't be merged, but the topic could be covered in different words. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep: Notability met. Merge should simply be removed, its misguided IMHO. This pool is in a geographical location, it's not the geographical location. Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Which notability guideline are we talking about? As far as I can tell there is no policy on places, other than the wider requirement for notability per WP:GNG, I see this article as being about a geographical place and facility and therefore I am not applying Notability (organizations and companies). Either way this article does not have, nor can I find, 'significant coverage' in verifiable, reliable sources therefore doe not meet GNG. Pol430  talk to me 14:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Please apply the concepts correctly. It is content to which the notion of verifiability applies.  It is reliability and independence which apply to sources. Uncle G (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Quite true, I have corrected my slip Pol430  talk to me 18:11, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Merge Its existence is probably notable, but as its creator I doubt there are enough sources about the subject. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:52, 23 December 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.