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 keep: per Wikipedia:Deletion_policy#Deletion_discussion, "It is... inappropriate to request deletion because of an editorial dispute. Such disputes are not resolved by deleting the whole page; instead, use dispute resolution." The nominator explicitly admits that he has nominated this article for deletion because of a perceived inability to prevail in an editorial dispute: "An attempt to trim some of the offending material was immediately reverted by one of the article's regular editors... Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted." [1]. This misuse of the AFD process to gain an advantage in an editorial dispute is disruptive, and will not be tolerated. Users who believe that this article is being edited in contravention of WP:NOT#TRAVEL are welcome to file a request for comment on articles regarding this matter. John254 00:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

Tourism in metropolitan Detroit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is a travel guide, and violates WP:NOT#TRAVEL. It lists every conceivable attraction, including non-notable hotels and restaurants, gives advice to visitors ("Excellent attractions for first time visitors to metropolitan Detroit include...", "Ride the Model T...", "Baggage cannot be checked at this location; however, up to two suitcases...", and uses peacock terms ("Detroit's proximity to Windsor, Ontario, provides for spectacular views and nightlife...", "The metropolitan area boasts two of the top live music venues in the United States..."). Much of it is copied from and duplicates articles on individual attractions, such as the Detroit Institute of Arts. An attempt to trim some of the offending material was immediately reverted by one of the article's regular editors, who later said on the talk page that the article is about Detroit's tourism industry and is not a travel guide. However there is almost no coverage of the tourism as an industry. Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete per WP:NOT#TRAVEL, with no prejudice against creation of an unbiased article. Its current form is mostly copy-and-paste from other articles, so not much would be lost with deletion of this. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or transwiki to Wikitravel. This is exactly the type of article WP:NOT#TRAVEL is intended to prevent, half of it is taken up with directories listing street addresses of selected tourism-related businesses. Crazysuit 02:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Great article, well written... but the policy against travel guides has always been a part of Wikipedia, and it's an excellent policy for which NO exceptions should be made. Otherwise, everyone would be doing their version of Montgomery Gentry's My Town song. Mandsford 15:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A very good article... for wikitravel, which is dedicated to this type of information. What we have here is a misconception over what type of wiki wikipedia is. While we're on the topic, I'd like to point out similiar problems with Neighborhoods in Detroit, Michigan, Economy of metropolitan Detroit#Tourism, Detroit International Riverfront, and Metro Detroit#Tourism, which are all extraordinarily similiar in tone and suffer many of the same problems.--Loodog 15:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep We can take things like the addresses, if thats a big deal. (I wasn't aware that addresses for tourist attractions were a problem - the feature article List of landmarks in Chicago has addresses, so why can't a tourism article?). Other city's have tourism articles such as New York which mention hotels. The NYC tourism article asks to be expanded. I would be happy to expand it in time. But then would it nominated for deletion? So when the Detroit information gets more complete some are complaining? However, we are attempting to create better artcles. The Detroit tourism article discusses numbers of visitors to specific areas and events, for example. This is valuable encyclopedic information. Assertions that the DIA information was copied are also misplaced. The number of articles has been consolidated and reduced in several cases. The Riverfront articles as well as Cranbrook articles were consolitdated to make them more readable. The DIA is more significant and warrants its own for expansion. The DIA discussion within the tourism article can be reduced. The rush to delete simply shows an aggregated bias by some who don't seem to like Detroit in general for some reason. Much of the information objected to is good information. Other cities have similar information. Even the existing policy, which is probably too restrictive, allows for discussion of attractions. What's the big deal? What is a non-notable Hotel to some? Notable hotels and restaurants have been listed. I've noticed that the restaurant list grew, but I also concurred to a degree that the restaurants added were of a noteworthy type informing the region's culture. Some should try to keep a more open mind. Much of the criticism seems to reflect a lack of knowledge about the region. For example, the Tribute restaurant and Royal Park Hotel were designed by the current head of American Institute of Architects chapter in Detroit. Coney Island is a famous restaurant with historic significance. The Omni Riverplace is built on a historic site Stroh's Riverplace. The Sheraton Riverside is the site of the original French Fort Pontchartrain. The Elmwood bar and grille is also historically significant. Some were listed for their economic importance to particular locality. On spectacular views and nightlife, that's simply what it is. The City of Detroit Department of Recreation refers to it as "spectacular views." Though they are by no means every hotel or restaurant. The region has tens of thousands of hotel rooms. We can reduce the lists if you like, but the Detroit lists have carefully considered what is notable. The intent was simply to provide the accurate information about tourism in Metro Detroit. Tourism by nature lends itself to discussing important attractions. Some have interests in these types of topics. Readers may be interested to know the information. The comparison to travel guides is not really valid, the more prominent travel guides, some of which have become more historic in nature over time because they are copying encyclopedias, and not the other way around. The attractions for first time vistors doesn't have to be in the article, but it was included to display in general what typical tourist may do in Detroit. Some people may have no idea. A typical tourist in Paris, for example, may go to the Eiffel tower and the Louvre. The policy as interpreted seems to be too strict. All cities would do well to have this type information regarding the overall tourism and this article could be an example. Thomas Paine1776 19:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tourism in New York City probably violates WP:NOT as well. If this article were like Tourism in Cuba then it would be OK. That article discusses the economic, legal, political and cultural impacts of tourism. It does not describe tourist attractions or offer advice to tourists. The listing of restaurants appears to simply be restaurants of interest to the editors - there's no tourism industry-related criteria for inclusion, such as highest volume. The sections on musueusm describe the collections and things to see, not the number of visitors. The section on hotels doesn't mention the number of beds or their high vacancy rates, and the overall article never mentions the major downward trend in tourism over recent years. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We can certainly add more regarding the legal, political, economic, and cultural aspects of Tourism in Detroit. It takes time too. We already have included some things. At the same time, we're not planning an all out advertisement for the social conflict theory. The Cuba article should inform people whether and what notable resorts/attractions exist there. Tourism in Cuba seems deficient in this respect, perhaps its because Cuba hasn't had much tourism since the US placed sanctions on it. The drinking age of 19 in Canada is one example we have included. It impacts the politics and the nightlife. The concept of the city as an entertainment hub for the region was meant to convey some of that. There is much to include about politics of adult entertainment for Detroit/Windsor. I have held off on that for the time being, but I can include it tactfully. Some of it we've actually been holding off on because the casinos are about to open and those issues are still developing other reasons are that we just need time to pull it together properly. There is discussion of economic impact and specifics, much more sourced facts and statistics than other similar articles, but that doesn't mean we're done with it. It seems you haven't given us any credit at all, simply on account of a few phrases here and there, and thats simply doesn't seem fair. Describing attractions briefly seems like valid encyclopedic information. Why not mention that the public can ride the Model T? "Ride the Model T" was simply a concise fit for a picture heading, it wasn't meant to be a promo lingo whether it came across that way or not. It seems if it were not mentioned that would be lacking significant factual information simply for the sake of denial. But if its a deal breaker for you, we don't have to inform people that the public actually can ride in a Model T. Important events exhibit regional culture, something often unnoticed in the US. We certainly haven't fully described every attraction like a guide. Some phrase about the "baggage checking which I removed, were probably added by someone simply to clarify what they felt was an unclear point and not to make it into a guide. We've merely informed about those attractsions that have significant rankings, size, or uniqueness. An article about tourism should describe what type of resorts or hotels the area has and display examples and mention what tourists do. We've included a healthy number of hotels, but it doesn't seem excessive. Its not like a guide. We purposefully did not make recommendations or rankings for restaurants as that is what seems like a guide to me. We didn't advise about prices for hotels, deals, or put stars or recommendations like a guide does. So we don't really feel its like a guide. Some of the criticisms you are making, we felt we were taking into consideration. A few words like "boast" were not mine originally, but we've removed them. Also we've changed sentences at others requests in the past. Its not like we haven't been courteous of inclusive of others ideas. I think we would appreciate it if you would withdrawl the nomination for deletion and let us add more information regarding legal and political aspects. Those of us who work on these projects, don't mind criticism, but we'd much rather spend our time writing and making the articles better than having to engage in these types of upheavals where we have to resolve these disputes. At the same time we've seen enough Detroit bashing from those who seem to have some axe to grind against Detroit because its the center of the auto industry, not to mention vandalism. Thomas Paine1776 00:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If we remove all of the descriptions of the attractions, and find sources for the inclusion of restaurants and hotels, then we'd be heading in the right direction. For the purposes of an article like this, all we really need to know about the Henry Ford Museum is its attendance figure. Likewise the DIA, etc. The existence of several cruise lines is significant, their names are not. For restaurants and hotels we can't just assemble a list of non-notable places we think are interesting. We need an objective criteria related to their importance ot the tourist industry. So if we're willing to stub the article and begin from scratch, including only material related to the business of tourism, then I'd be willing to withdraw my "delete" !vote. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:49, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I'm not sure who Thomas Paine1776 is referring to with the comment about editors "who seem to have some axe to grind against Detroit". If he has particular editors in mind it'd be better if he raises that issue with them directly. If he's not thinking of particular editors then it isn't a useful assertion. Personal comments don't have a place in AfD discussions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:55, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Talk about a double standard. You actually have the nerve to tell Tom that unmamed comments about contributors have no place in a AfD and all over this page you do the opposite. Have you no perspective? Your prime reason for deletion is the "substantial resistence" from other editors you refuse to name. plus, what outside source do you have to make the inclusions/exclusions about certain copy? What qualifications do you have to make these judgements beyond your own opinion. Is not number of hotel rooms in a city or region a very important economic statistic? I think it is, I mean you really have a horribly arrogant attitude, I trust Paine's references and insight more than yours. Stubbing an article why? Just add what you want to improve the thing. You act like a censor. Maybe you have no idea how to improve the article so you want it stubbed. Naming of places is not a crime, if you want a criteria for tourism industry articles then do some research and make suggestions before censoring current articles. Are you sure you really know what tourism is all about as an economic sector and thus what should be included? It seems like you have threatened Tom with deletion and then try to dictate to him what is suitable. Where are your sources for concluding attendence figures are all that should be included? I think Paine is being overly generous with you to be honest. Whatever the case- this is the sort of stuff that belongs on the article's Talk page not in a Afd page. --Mikerussell 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please stick to remarks about articles, not editors here. We will never get anywhere otherwise.--Loodog 01:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• We feel descriptions of major attractions are appropriate material for an encyclopedia tourism article and are good content. We also feel tourism economic infrastructure is important. We are still open to criticisms and suggestions. We are relating the overall important tourism infrastructure. I have also removed many of the sentences you objected to or gave them a reference. Agree that the lists are not necessary. We can work to reduce or eliminate the boxes of lists, that's really not an issue (except for maybe the events list). We feel general descriptions of the area and cultural centers are appropriate for an encyclopedia tourism article. We can discuss your suggestions about sentences. We can also incorporate more attendance figures. Keep in mind we already have more factual information than most articles of this type. We can incorporate your suggestions for additions to content. We can add more information about the political, legal, and cultural aspects. The importance of noteworthy attractions is factual information. The cruise ship dock is a new facility, we felt it should be included. If your objection was to the list of names, then that is understandable, that wasn't clear. Keep in mind the photo editors work hard to try to meet our content needs. The thought was a representation of the economic tourism infrastructure (and not a guide). Tourism economic infrastructure is very important. And we were working with the layout since we have good photographers. I'll see what I can do to accomodate your concerns. Again, we request that you withdraw your nomination for deletion of the article and discuss the content with us rather than resorting to these sorts of tactics. Thomas Paine1776 23:48, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• BTW, regarding your comment that you may change your vote in favor, and respecting your question of whether you can withdraw the nomination to delege, I think you can withdraw your nomination for deletion, and simply refer people to the discussion page. We can add political, legal, cultural, and social aspects as you suggested from Tourism in Cuba, but be reasonable, Cuba is a Communist country under sanction, it isn't much for tourism, so its its deficient in many respects. Its seems a bit overboard to hold up Cuba, a country that has little tourism as a model for tourism articles. We also still feel that decriptions of major attractions tourism infrastructure is appropriate for an encycopedia tourism article. Appreciate it, if you would simply withdraw your nimination for deletion. Thomas Paine1776 21:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For the reasons listed your talk page, I will not engage in further discussion here. If you'd like, we can discuss this on my user talk page or by email. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:27, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep I think that the nomination to delete is really motivated by personal feelings from the nominator and other voters, like User:Loodog, who’s own User page speaks to a kind of odd personalizing of every disagreement that doesn't go his way. The nominator has even foolishly decided to call me a "regular contributor" which is just plain false-I only add pictures when I get the urge; I defended the listing against a weak and inapplicable standard last week based on the nominator’s faulty interpretation of policy and blindness to the possibility the article describes a valid economic activity. TOURISM is not TRAVEL, to repeat. I think the point is lost in this idiotic push for censorship based on personal animosity. There is a very unreasonable punitive push applied here, especially when some of the above voters say it’s a good article! I have never witnessed a Delete nomination based on admitted high quality of the article. It is just too good, it must go! Delete! Delete! Delete! Somebody’s personal motivations here remind of an ashtray- they stink. User:Thomas Paine1776 wrote most of it I assume, and as I know from my days studying Political Philosophy at the University of Toronto, the real Thomas Paine was renowned as a pamphleteer. This wikipedian named Paine definitely follows his namesake at times, but to censor the entire thing, without even giving the contributor a chance to make improvements is just so low and spitful. Really shameful conduct for an administrator on wikipedia- such bullying from someone entrusted to welcome newcomers? I for one hope others recognize the merits of contributors like Paine who spend free time to make the encyclopedia better, even if their contributions require better expression and collective editing to improve quality. --User:Mikerussell 19:49, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would strongly advise all contributors to this discussion to stick to content, not contributors in their arguments. The above comments on motive are a clear assumption of bad faith bordering on personal attack. Comments like "they stink" are totally unacceptable in any context. VanTucky ^Talk 21:57, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment on Comment If you really want to demonstrate the sort of conduct you pretend to follow, as opposed to hyprocritically bringing to light my comments, you might want to note the nominators own introductory paragraph, which claims his motivation to delete is based on: "Since the main editors appear unwilling to allow article's problems to be corrected I believe it should be deleted. This is a direct reference about my conduct, claiming I am being such a destructive force in wikipedia that this article is beyond repair and should be deleted. When in fact I simply reverted one edit and gave vaild reasons. You really have to watch out when you begin to think you are the judge and jury buddy. Address the nomination- as is- and lay off the personal scolding, you ain't my mother, the facts tend to back it up, learn what "assuming" actually means too. -User:Mikerussell 22:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I didn't mean anything personal by referring to Mikerussell as one of the article's "main editors". He is the third most active contributor to the article. He took it upon himself to restore the list of restaurants that I deleted, defended its inclusion, and then invited me to initiate a deletion discussion.[2] I did not nominate this article based on personal motivations against any editor or city. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:23, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  You can say what you will now, but your reason for Deletion is squarely aimed at contributors and not content. Your own words above and below are all directed at unnamed editors who you claim are so resistent to change, the entire article must be deleted. --Mikerussell 22:18, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This article needs to be re-written to sound less like a travel guide. Articles in need of improvement should be improved, not deleted! There are a number of "Travel in X" articles that contributors could use as a guide for improving this one (Tourism in Cuba for example). Amazinglarry 20:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The subject, rather than simply the tone, is patently a violation of WP:NOT#TRAVEL. Any possibly salvageable content should go into the main Detroit article. Even if the subject was a relevant one, there would be no real content if you deleted all the promotional and how-to language from the present article. This subject would be a fitting press release for tourist boards, but is not an encyclopedic topic. VanTucky ^Talk 21:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Your reasoning is not valid, there are several other tourism articles. Are you proposing to delete all tourism? Thomas Paine1776 22:00, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You may want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Arguing that this should be kept because other articles exist is not acceptable in AFD discussion. VanTucky ^Talk 22:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• So this means that Tourism in Cuba needs to be deleted too? Suddenly we have a police state when it comes to what is included and not included.--User:Mikerussell 22:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The point is, it is off-topic and unhelpful to discuss other articles. This is about whether policy and guideline support the deletion of this article, not any other. Anything else is arguing around the core issue. VanTucky ^Talk 22:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Mike is right. You brought up the "subject." The guideline needs to be rewritten too. Citing an illogical guideline with circular reasoning doesn't justify your reason for deletion. You said, the "subject." If you are going to delete one article because of the subject, then you are apparently saying all tourism should be deleted. Perhaps the present article should be used as a model for a new guideline. Thomas Paine1776 22:41, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• When people refer to "the subject" in an AFD, they are speaking of the subject of the article specifically as defined by its title and intro. This means I think the specific subject of "tourism in metropolitan Detroit" is unfit for encyclopedic treatment per the policies and guidelines which outline what Wikipedia is and is not. This is not a comment on the subject of tourism as a whole. VanTucky ^Talk 22:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Yup. Mike is right.Thomas Paine1776 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For User:VanTucky's above comment- you think it violates the "the policies and guidelines" for inclusion. Guidelines are not just that, but your comment begs the question- would you delete Tourism in Cuba too? Or would you keep it because Cuba deserves "encyclopedic treatment" and Detroit does not? I honestly just don't understand the logic here.--User:Mikerussell 22:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have missed the point. Discussing other stuff that exists is not relevant in Wikipedia AFD discussions. This is about whether to delete the Tourism in metropolitan Detroit article and no other. VanTucky ^Talk 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree Mike, this doesn't seem to be about logic or trying to make articles better at all. Its seems more like a collective brou ha ha of people who don't don't like Detroit and want to devise ways to disrupt the subject matter. I couldn't really understand why someone would want to delete information about a cruise ship dock in a tourism article which is what prompted this whole nomination. There were no suggestions of what to change, only threats. We've researched the subject and worked to make it more readable and better. Other cities and places have tourism articles, Detroit did not have one. So now that it does, its time to attack Detroit is that it? And we've been attacked and harrassed. Isn't there any wikipedia policy against that? User:Carptrash said it best, he said, "There seem to be two kinds of wikipedians, those who do and those who tell others what to do. I'd rather switch than fight" Of course, I asked him to stay. Thomas Paine1776 23:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tom, please assume good faith in what everyone's doing. There can be no constructive conversation here otherwise. We'd just bitterly attack each other and lose sight of the article. We're all adults; we can find agreement.--Loodog 00:05, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete: I read the entire article twice and it seems more like a travel brochure to me than an encyclopedia article. --Moreau36 23:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Show us a tourism article that you think is well written. Also, tell us whether you would want to delete Tourism in Cuba and Tourism in New York City. The point is the Metro Detroit tourism article could be a model for some of the others since most of them appear to need serious help. So instead of tearing down the researched model and leaving no good examples, why not have an input. Thomas Paine1776 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Tourism in Cuba is actually pretty good and does discuss the tourism industry of Cuba rather than the tourist attractions of Cuba. It is nothing like Tourism in metropolitan Detroit. If that article was modelled on the Cuba article then there'd be no problem. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Everyone who is arguing for the deletion of this article needs to reread WP:PROBLEM. There are clearly problems with this article but they are obviously surmountable, since many other Tourism articles of high quality exist on wikipedia. Nominating a poorly written article for deletion is not the correct way to deal with the problem. Spend the time fixing it instead! Amazinglarry 00:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normally I'd agree with you. However there is considerable resistance to changing the article substantially on the part of some involved editors. In the existing article I can only see two short sentences that refer to the tourism industry, the remainder being a guide to tourist attractions, etc. If the outcome from this discussion is to keep and stub the article that'd be acceptable too. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What are talking about Mr/Ms Beback? What editors? What changes? When did you ever offer any changes? You only opened the debate two days ago. Where is this resistence to change? On what points? I am just bewildered with this reasoning. Delete the article immediately because you feel "substantial resistence" to change by editors who simply disagree with you? Have you lost all perspective? What is this substantial ressitence- my belief that Tourism is not the same thing as travel? I just don't get it. And you are an administrator? You are saying that editors that disagree with you have caused this article to be deleted. I am just dumbstruck. --Mikerussell 22:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as failing WP:NOT a travel guide. If the article is rewritten as an encyclopaedia article, with the requisite referencing, I will reconsider. Nuttah68 10:58, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. WP:NOT a travel guide. This is just a rehashing of content that should be elsewhere (individual monument pages etc) written in a rosier tone. The content that should be in this page is about two sentences' worth (the first couple), so they should be rewritten (to avoid GFDL issues) and included on the main Detroit article under economy or something, and this article deleted. Calliopejen1 18:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I just stubbed the Tourism in New York City article for the same reason--the best part of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments is they let other problematic articles get noticed. Calliopejen1 18:45, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Although I find the information interesting, the article is not about the tourism industry of Detroit, it is about tourist attractions which is against Wikipedia Policy.--Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 21:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki most of the content to WikiTravel, although it might be already there (WP:is not a travel guide as several stated) and the most pertinent and sourced info only should be present in the article of the Motor City.--JForget 23:21, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I was canvassed to this nomination. I suspect the canvasser is not going to get the hoped for outcome from canvassing. First, there are several people participating in this discussion that really need to tone it down Don't make me name names please... Second, my biases. I am strongly connected to Detroit. I was born there, way back when. I love Michigan, I chose to return 10 years ago and raise my family here. I come to Detroit for projects all the time, and love the things there are to do there. (in fact I sit in Dearborn as I speak, here for project work) I'm glad that Detroit seems to be turning things around, at long last, and that there IS a tourism industry there. That said... this article does not, in its present form, belong on Wikipedia, as it is a travel guide. Transwiki it to Wikitravel, then stub it out, and write an encyclopedic article similar to Tourism in Cuba that deals with the implications of tourism, not just what to do on a saturday nite. Or don't, have none at all. But this article should not stay here in its present form. That Tourism in New York City is similarly flawed is NOT an argument as to why this one should stay. I'm sorry that people put a lot of effort into this... but a lot of effort is not a keep reason. If WikiTravel won't have it, consider Great Lakes Wiki perhaps... but in its present form, it is my considered opinion that it must go. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Glad you agree that there is a tourism industry in the Detroit area. We agreed of course to add other aspects to the article regarding the cultural, political, legal, etc, and a more economic focus of the tourism industry and/or take suggestions from Tourism in Cuba. Thus we have asked the delete nomination be withdrawn. However, Cuba is a communist country under sanction and there just isn't much of a tourism industry there, so its a deficient article itself and non-comparable in that way. So certainly we can revise it. Also, we agreed to reduce or eliminate the boxes of information (except for perhaps events list), but this article is not a guide, and that was considered - it does not give advice like a guide and it does not give ratings, prices, or booking information. It does describe infrastructure and factual information of the impact of the tourism industry. We feel that descriptions of important places, attractions, and events are appropriate factual information that impacts the industry, but we can work with suggestions of others. We can also document more impact and revenues. We understand the point that there is a fine line between guide and encyclopedic information on tourism, thus we will endeavor to reign in that aspect so as to avoid it becoming a guide. We are simply asking for fairness. There don't seem to be examples of well done tourism articles, thus we were attempting to have a better one as an example. (Tourism in New York City seemed not so well done, and it has sat there for some time without being assailed), and it has an expansion request on it. These issues were better addressed in the article discussion page, rather than jumping to these kind of tactics. We were given little or no input or suggestions, simply threats. If other articles are flawed why are such tactics not being used there, again we view it as a lack of fairness. And we would appreciate it if the nomination for deletion were withdrawn. Thomas Paine1776 22:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one argues that there is a tourism industry in Detroit, or that it has impact on many things. The issue here is the quality and focus of this article, the topic itself is notable and worthy of a properly written article. In some cases it is better to have no article than a poorly executed one, as a large poorly executed article can inhibit creation of a small, well executed one. We consider articles by themselves, without reference to other articles good or bad points, so that NYC's article has issues is irrelevant, as has been explained multiple times (and your re-raising it is frustrating) The point of introducing the Tourism in Cuba article was to show how an article ought to approach the topic, as has been explained multiple times (and your re-raising it is frustrating), not to say that there is any similarity in the places, so your comment about system of government isn't relevant and is no basis for asking that this AfD be withdrawn. Also, I have to question your use of "we"... (we considered, we will, we can work with, etc) who is "we" in this context? That raises concerns of ownership on your part, or whoever "we" are, and ownership should be avoided... it leads to hard feelings when work is criticised. As has happened, in my view, here, there are hard feelings in evidence. All that said... I re-reviewed the article after [[[User:John|John's]] latest trimming and it is better than it was. It still in my view reads too much like a travelog. But I've changed my view from delete to neutral, and if this article can lose another 10K of content, I'd support keeping it (and yes, I find it odd to argue for reducing the size of something but there you are). ++Lar: t/c 21:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you kidding me here? Detroit is the eigth biggest city in the nation and it as well as it's metro area has quite a big tourism industry. I would like to point out the Casino's that just added tons of space and resorts. What drove you people to think this article should be deleted? Detroit IS going through rough economic times but that doesn't mean the city itself hasn't made progress? Have ever even been downtown? Please tell me what got in your head to delete this article. - TheCoolOne99 23:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • You might want to review a bit more closely, because that the topic is worthy of an article is not seriously in dispute. What is in dispute is whether this article is worthy of the topic. Sometimes it is better to have no article than a really bad one, and sometimes a possible deletion focuses energy on fixing what needs fixing. Which appears to be happening here. ++Lar: t/c 00:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A recurring theme here seems to be precedent and WP:OTHERSTUFF. The issue of this article's being compliant with guidelines and appropriate to WP is completely independent of the existence of similiar articles which have not (yet) been scrutinized by us. Therefore: find out what makes this article right. From there we can begin to address the like cases that have been brought up.--Loodog 00:06, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What or whom is "us" when you say "scrutinized by us"? This deletion is the most bizarre I have ever seen on wikipedia. Beback has just stated that he would support the article's inclusion if it was a stub???? And then he has the nerve to say it was not a personal attack to nominate. Read: the article is fine to keep if certain editors do not get to contribute. If Beback and Loodog can decide who shall contribute then the article itself can be kept????? Someone should really re-think their suitability for adminship. I mean the lifeblood of wikipedia is reasoned discusssion, not lynch mob mentality against people who have other views. Anybody can read the nomination praragraph directed at me and my interchange with Beback yesterday on the article's Talk page. Did he tag the article? No. Has any discusssion about the article contents taken place over any reasonable period of time? No- read the talk page. Has he taken any time to contribute? No- he deleted material without any effort at improving the article. When I reinstated the material and explained my reasons, he rejected the claims and threatened that unless it was cleaned up, the only other option was deletion. One day later he nominated it for deletion- ONE DAY! If he actually thinks I wanted to start a nomination for deletion discussion, when I said "go for it" after he threatened one for voicing my opinion, he needs help. And if you think lynch mob is too strong a word just read User:Will Beback's Talk page at User_talk:Will_Beback#Advertising_of_cities. These two editors have some prejudice against the unnamed editors and instead of dealing with the article's merits and working to improve it over a couple of weeks, they end up three days later asking it be deleted because other editors are defending their opinions with reasons. This is just a horrible power trip, I mean the nonsensical assertion that you do not compare similar articles titled "Tousism in..." when considering whether to delete this one gives me a brain injury. I can barely believe what I am reading. According to the comment above the goal of the self-appointed wikipedia vigilantes is to delete this article first and then fix the other similar articles. What am I missing here? Is that not the definition of prejudice? --Mikerussell 21:56, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"us" is every person on this talk page. This discussion group can't hold up articles we haven't scrutized as flawless precedents. If they need to be addressed, we can always discuss them on their own talk pages, but this article is particular is the only consideration right now.--Loodog 15:44, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milkerussell, did you not write:

• Whatever the case, the more attention it gets the better- so go for it- try a delete nom, I have nothing aginst such debates. [3]

Your present comments make it appear that you resent this AfD. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Comment: Just to treat User:Will Beback with "assumption of good faith", I want to stress that I give permission to the nominator to withdraw the AfD. It seems to me, if I read the above comment in an "assumption of good faith" that he is clearly claiming a major reason he initiated the Delete process was because he thought I wanted one. Hopefully, he will have no problem quickly reconsidering the nomination in light of this corrected misunderstanding. I apologize to him if my sarcastic remark was misunderstood. I also just discovered this [4] comment made by the nominator three days before the AfD initiated by him at User_talk:Loodog#Improving the project. It is clear, in assuming good faith, the nominator knew there were other means to review the article prior to any delete nomination, namely Wikipedia:Article review and Wikipedia:Good article and only went to the AfD because he was mislead by own statement. Thus I hope he can recind the nomination in good faith. Thanks in advance.-- 20:27, 2007 September 17Mikerussell.

You are really beyond all belief. Taking the comment out of context is so unfair. My words are in response to your threat. YOUR WORDS WERE: "If there's no agreement to clean this up the only other option is to delete it." (see this prior entry [[5]]) You are really pushing it, if you actually thought, I thought, my words would lead you to nominate the article for deletion a day later. I got better things to do than get entangled with power trippy wikipedia adminsitrators. Let me be clear: NO. I did not want you to nominate it for deletion. I always thought there was a long process of tagging and debate and mediation and these other processes before an article is nominated for deletion, especially an article that has existed for 9 months and is well sourced, linked to other articles, similar to other articles, generally well written (in the sense there are no errors of fact, clear paragraph structure, clear headings, usable pictures, and logical expression about the topic's significance) is uncontroversial and describes a valid econmic activity. If you have some courage, you will admit you made a rush to judgement and withdraw the nomination. --Mikerussell 23:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment And THIS is why I hope that Wikipedia never changes its policy that it is not a place to include "travel guides". Whether you've lived in Detroit, Michigan or you live in Deland, Florida, you tend to be proud of "your" town, sometimes jealous of it. When there's an article about it, someone else's editing seems as outrageous as a person taking a piss in your backyard. Even the slightest things like arguing over what attractions, museums, hotels, etc. are "notable" can turn into a territory dispute. Even the debate becomes personal. I don't think anyone here hates Detroit or hates the nominator or hates anyone else, but it's easier to take offense when they're talking about you and your world. There are plenty of tourist websites on the internet, and Wikipedia doesn't need to play host to any of them. Mandsford 13:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't have a problem with an article about the tourism industry for Detroit. But the current content is EXACTLY a travel guide, and does not provide the foundation for a good article. -- 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs)

• Weak keep; I took out the worst excesses and if the article can continue to be improved to meet our standards there is no pressing need to delete. --John 20:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep If you can expand upon the actual tourism numbers (volume, dollars, information on sustainable tourism in the area, etc.) and not just make this a explanatory collection of tourist destinations I would support keeping it.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC 20:38, 19 September 2007 (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.