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.
Speedy Keep article has been around since 2004 with many edits. Movies from Flashdance to Coyote Ugly sparked phenomenons of table top dancing bars. Article may need more sources, but per WP:CITE sources aren't required unless topics are controversial or questionable Tabletop dancing from stripping to college girls is not really controversial, especially when movies have been made. This is a case of "I don't like the way the article looks, so I will delete it instead of allowing sourcing to happen naturally through time." --DavidShankbone 17:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a great advert for WP if this is the best that could be achieved since 2004 for such an apparently notable term. Delete unless a radical proper rewrite is instigated. MickMacNee (talk) 17:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We don't use deletion nominations to improve writing for articles. --DavidShankbone 17:58, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do if the current content of the article is non-notable. MickMacNee (talk) 17:59, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect. We do if the topic is non-notable. The current content may be deficient, but if the notability of the topic is uncontroversial then that's a content issue, not an AFD issue. FT2(Talk | email) 14:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; current content seems notable enough, and the topic certainly is notable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How can it 'seem notable' when no assertion of notability is made? Similarly, how is the topic notable? MickMacNee (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine hits on "table dance" on the recent news of news.google.com. You could try [1] for just one. Between 2003 and 2006, news.google.com has over 600 hits. How is the subject not notable?--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:27, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does the article reflect that notability? The one link you provide shows a clear no. MickMacNee (talk) 19:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's a surmountable problem. The references exist, they just need to be added. That means the topic is notable, but the article needs to be fixed. And we don't delete articles on notable topics just because no one has added references yet. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article subject is notable. matt91486 (talk) 19:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Could use some work, but like it or not this is part of the culture Change to Speedy Keep as references have been added which addresses the phrasing of the nomination Mstuczynski (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very obvious keep. The subject of the article, is clearly notable. SQLQuery me! 20:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with addition of references demonstrating notability, but it is very obviously notable--Hazillow (talk) 20:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mick, if all of us guys could take you with us to a strip club so we could all get drunk and watch table dances, you'd appreciate the subject more. I agree that the article itself needs some better editing. Did anyone catch the part where the German "table dance" at Oktoberfest "is not of an erotic nature"? That's laugh-out-loud dumb. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, thanks for the info, suffice to say, I know what the term means, and I see what the article says, hence the quite obvious candidacy for deletion. MickMacNee (talk) 21:30, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see sufficient [2] results for table dancing to indicate to me that this subject could be covered. If not an independent article, merge/redirect to erotic dancing. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:36, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, have the google results presented got precisely anything to do with the contents of this article?MickMacNee (talk) 21:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content of the article is irrelevant. Subject is the concern I have, and I'd have no objection to adding a ((rewrite)) tag to the current content. Content is actually a clean-up issue in this case, and as such, it isn't an AFD matter. Why? Because a quick search indicates plenty of sources for potential content. Thus the initial rationale isn't a concern. If you want to find sources, there's plenty out there. Take the opportunity to fix a problem rather than rushing to deletion. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 21:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The worst aspect of WP. The article is nonsense, but just because the title means something IRL, it has to be kept regardless. MickMacNee (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is the best aspect of Wikipedia: The community is essentially telling you that all the time, effort and keystrokes you spent to try and contract the encyclopedia, information that in the month of January alone over 3,700 people wanted to read about on our site, you could have found more than enough resources to improve an article. Instead, you sought to delete it In February alone 5,000 people went to this article and the month is not even over. That is the problem with deletionism: they forget that what makes Wikipedia relevant is people actually finding an article they were curious about.--DavidShankbone 21:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Are those stats all humans, and not just google et al? Besides, since when do page hits equal notability? MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They don't. But this subject being notable does indicate it. matt91486 (talk) 22:20, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I say we all take Mick out for a night at Hogs & Heifers. He'll be placing the photograph of it on his User page the next day! lol. --DavidShankbone 22:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undoubtedly. Creating a wiki article on the back of it though, I don't think so. MickMacNee (talk) 22:37, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really? I don't think the article is nonsense. Nonsense would be something else entirely. The content of the article is coherent and understandable. The only problem is the one with sources. Which does seem to be addressable so it's not a great problem. You're certainly not convincing me that I'm wrong to say that there is potential for an article. You'd have been better off suggesting a redirect, that I could have gotten behind. But instead, you're saying this is the worst aspect of Wikipedia. Do you really think I find that persuasive? It's not. It's an argument unrelated to the article at hand, and quite a bit of hyperbole. And if there's anything that's a bad aspect of Wikipedia, it's that kind of behavior. You may wish to rethink your statements. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 22:02, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; please do not attempt to delete things that need only expansion, sourcing, and improvement. We have a deletion criterion for things that are too short and undeveloped to have any value at all but that's clearly not the case here. Antandrus (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, lack of references is a surmountable problem as notability of the term is not in doubt. This nomination borders on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Ig8887 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone noticed that Dhartung added references? Unless the nom wishes to challenge these, I believe that he no longer has an argument for deletion and should withdraw. Mstuczynski (talk) 13:11, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable topic, longtime article. Possible slight case of WP:OSTRICH in the nomination. Can always use expansion, improvement, but just as viable an article as, say, Lap dance. 23skidoo (talk) 15:14, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I wrote most of the article on Go-Go dancing. I think this article is just as worthy of inclusion. Keraunos (talk) 02:13, 28 February 2008 (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.