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, due to the stellar improvements from others. Nominator withdrew and now supports keeping the article. Jamie^☆S93 11:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perth Leisure Pool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I see no evidence that this pool is notable, article is unreferenced. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 17:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC) I've been away and not able to log on for a few days, so sorry missed most of the debate. Article is now unrecognisable from the one I nominated and all my concerns have been addressed. Thanks to the contributors. Keep. Paste _{Let’s have a chat.} 20:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. It seems that the article is unreferenced because there is nothing to cite. Quantumobserver (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC) Switching to support based on improvements made. This seems to be a successful rescue. Quantumobserver (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:LOCAL. It's a swimming pool, we don't need articles about all public pools and nothing makes this one stand out besides it occasionally being a health hazard. Drawn Some (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because good god what was somebody thinking in even creating it. An encyclopedia is WP:NOT the yellow pages/phone book/guidebook. DreamGuy (talk) 20:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This facility has attracted over 10 million visitors. Numerous references and articles can be located (some of which I have already added into the article. Article meets the general notability guidelines. Varbas (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked as a sockpuppet of banned account User:Azviz. DreamGuy (talk) 19:51, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As far as I'm concerned, my original ((prod)) rationale (Unless there's something particularly notable about this pool – and there's nothing in the article to suggest there is – it's unencylopedic, non-neutral, and bordering on advertising. Wikipedia is not the Yellow Pages) still stands. Their own website may indeed claim that it's "one of the most popular visitor attractions in Scotland", but I don't believe it for an instant, any more than I believe that a swimming pool in a town with a population of 43,450 has actually had 10 million visitors. (10 million over 20 years = 500,000 per year; just to put that in perspective, the five National Galleries of Scotland museums combined had 842,958 visitors last year. – iridescent 21:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not just a swimming pool, as it is a year-round indoor complex which includes 5 swimming pools with flumes, bubble beds and other water features, a gym, health spa, cafe, creche and (for sunny days) an outdoor children's play area. In 2006, 3 years ago, it was noted that it received over 700,000 visitors a year: Scotland, 7th edition. Not just a swimming pool. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - With 500,000 visitors a year, this recreational facility is HUGELY popular in Scotland. The article should be kept on the evidence of verifiable references, not in the editors' belief of whether or not such referenced facts are true. Varbas (talk) 13:21, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely; provide a verifiable reference (at the moment, the source is "The leisure pool’s facility operations manager Debbie Gillespie") for the fact that the entire population of Perth – man, woman, and child – visit the pool 12 times a year on average, and I'll believe it. – iridescent 19:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

500,000? Certainly its visitors are not limited to only residents of Perth. In 2006, 3 years ago, it was noted that it received over 700,000 visitors a year: Scotland, 7th edition. The city of Anaheim, California, with a population of almost 350,000, hosts Disneyland. In 2008 Disneyland received over 14 million visitors. No one suggests that this fact means each citizen of Anahiem visited the theme park 40 times a year. When tourists visit a popular site, they come from all over. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article has references and I just added another one. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be having difficulty understanding the difference between references showing that something actually exists versus reliable sources showing that something is notable in general, let alone notable enough for a full encyclopedia article. The kinds of sources added do not show any notability. Quit the contrary, in fact. DreamGuy (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Please see our deletion policy which makes it clear that deletion is only for hopeless cases. A major facility of this sort is clearly not hopeless and I have demonstrated this by adding another source. In this, a learned Professor confirms that this is a "major tourist attraction" and provides details of a significant public health incident which occurred there. There are thousands more sources I could sift through but this seems more than adequate. Such simple searches demonstrate that editors such as User:Quantumobserver above are quite mistaken when they suppose that there is nothing to cite about this place. Their opinions should therefore be disregarded. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• You think this pool is notable because a kid took a shit in it (which is all that "an episode of accidental faecal contamination" actually means)? Oh, and please point me to the part of the deletion policy where it says "deletion is only for hopeless cases". And just a hint: saying of everyone who disagrees with you that "their opinions should therefore be disregarded" is unlikely to help your case. – iridescent 22:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Our opinion of the incident is unimportant. The point is that the public health authorities consider the matter noteworthy. Note also that their report confirms the vistor numbers which you disbelieved above. As for our polices, I provided a link. See also our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• No, you provided a link to a policy that says nothing of the kind. What our deletion policy actually says is "Articles whose subjects fail to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)". Which thus far nobody has provided any evidence of this meeting. I am not going to continue this conversation with you if you're not even going to bother reading what you're citing. – iridescent 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We have abundant evidence of notability. Note that WP:AFD states, "Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." This article can clearly be improved by normal editing, as I have demonstrated, by reference to architectural and medical authorities. It is therefore not a good candidate for deletion. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a hopeless case by the notability requirements, and trying to pretend those say somethign other than what they do is just wikilawyering. And I must object to you continually removing my comments on this page with information that the closing admin needs to see. I don't care if you would rather not believe the user is a sockpuppet of a banned user, but the individual is actively being investigated as such and his vote is therefore potentially invalid and that info should be here for the closing admin to see. This behavior of yours is highly disruptive, and could lead to you being blocked. DreamGuy (talk) 23:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S.: No longer just potentailly invalild, but ompletely invalid, as the account has been blocked for sockpuppetry. On top of not being allowed to remove other people's comments, you were wrong on this. Please keep this in mind for the future so you do not repeat such behavior. If you do I will not hesitate to get you blocked for disruption. DreamGuy (talk) 19:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What a shame, too... as I try to assume good faith in any editor's efforts to improve the project. At least the concerns were proven valid even though the messenger was not... and several articles have thus been improved per AFTER, PRESERVE and POTENTIAL. Yes, the closer will disregard his specific opinion... but since AfD is not a vote, the closer will also undoubtedly look to the other comments and will make a judgement based upon the article that went to AfD, comments made before improvement, the article that was subsequently forced to be improved, and the comments after the improvement. Happy editing. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:35, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep as now meeting all Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, per improvements and sourcing added since the nomination to meet the nom's concern of "unreferenced" (per WP:AFTER AND WP:POTENTIAL) and per precedents set for inclusion of regional notable venues if properly sourced, as notability for a few million is just as suitable as notability for a few hundred million if it meets the guidelines for inclusion. The article now leaps past the WP:GNG, despite WP:IDONTLIKEIT views (sorry, but it does) with in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. Wikipedia does not state that such are not worthy of inclusion. Wikipedia does state the requirements that need be met... and this one now qualifies. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note to closer: Nothing is "hopeless", if someone addresses the situation, is willing to fix it, and actually does so. Look at the before, and look at the after. A marked improvement. Best regards, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:24, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Reliable and verifiable sources currently in the article establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep If it has 700,000 visitors a year, then its notable. Use common sense Dream Focus 11:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: common sense needs to be backed up by verifiable sources-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep appears to have recieved coverage in multiple reliable sources. Thanks are due to the clean up crew who were able to back up claims of notability! -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nominator's concerns appear to have been addressed, as the expanded article indicates notability pretty clearly and is well-sourced, and there are no other problems which merit deletion. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:57, 31 May 2009 (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.