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 no consensus. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tidal Impact[edit]

Tidal Impact (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've looked for WP:RS citations for this and not done well. It might just pass WP:GNG on the basis of the psychological study made on participants by Warwick University, but I find it lacking. The sources I can find seem to be pretty much self referencing and self reverential. So I'm suggesting we delete it as a non notable, albeit large and popular, gathering. It feels to me to be like a particular annual rally for a set of classic car enthusiasts where the car is notable, not the particular event. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:23, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my search for references the only quasi notable on I found was the psychological study. The classic car rally reference is a simile Fiddle Faddle (talk) 15:43, 23 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think you need to do better than just say it should be kept and mention a general guideline. hat about the article tells you it is notable and verifiably so? Please be precise. WP:BURDEN makes that your responsibility by implication. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment Then by definition it cannot have a place here. The sources, such as they are, are all primary sources. Wikipedia does not accept facts unless they are cited in reliable sources. The sources need not be online. Paper based or broadcast media sources are acceptable, but they must be citable. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So if I can cite this in the places that call for citation the page will stay up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Also how long do I have before this page gets deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.164.98.7 (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are no guarantees. Consensus is important here. Citing WP:Reliable sources increases the probability that the article is not deleted. But cite poor or primary sources and it is likely to fail. There is very little time left. Work well and methodically, but work swiftly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
More