Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tour d'Afrique

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 of the debate was keep. – Rob e rt 00:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tour d'Afrique

Vanity Page. Page advertises a very expensive holiday. At this point there is a very short track record and an entry here would be seen to be promotional in the furtherance of extending the short life span of this trip. As a general rule a cycling event should have a minimum track record of at least 10 years before being considered for an encyclopedic reference. For example Boston-Montreal-Boston has been running since 1988. This is a randonnuer challenge event which is similar to Paris Brest Paris - PBP. PBP is included in Wikepedia however BMB is not and that latter event now has a high profile within the cycling world because it is run annually while PBP is quadrennial. ATA Girl 23:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This afd nomination was orphaned. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 16:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The event has a reasonably high public profile in Southern Africa, and gets a more than respectable 35,000 hits on Google. I'm not equipped to say whether it is a holiday or a genuine sporting event, although I note the page claims the 2003 Tour d'Afrique set a Guinness World Record for fastest crossing of Africa by bicycle. Humansdorpie 16:22, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Both Google and Guiness Book of Records are dubious references for an encyclopedia that takes itself seriously. That hit count referred to on google searches for all phrases Tour d'Afrique, including tour d'Afrique de George Bush. A significant portion of the references on google are to the use of that phrase in a context that has nothing to do with this trip. As for the Guiness publication, let's not lose sight of the fact that this book was originally designed as a promotion to sell beer. What measures do you have to gage its popularity in Southern Africa? As far as I can tell this trip is largely a vanity exercise by well-to-do people from first world countries and not from Southern Africa. ATA Girl 17:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can point you to reports on the race by the Times of Zambia and Mail & Guardian (South Africa); the M & G report says that 8 of the 60 cyclists are South African. (Anecdotally, I've seen at least one S. African TV report on it on SABC or E-TV in the last 2 years). You seem to have created your account yesterday for the purpose of listing this article for deletion, so you may not be aware that Google is often used as a broad measure of the notability of a Wikipedia article's subject. I have no view on the stature or otherwise of the Guinness Book of Records as a reference tool, simply passing on a claim on the Tour d'Afrique's web site. Humansdorpie 17:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Let's not lose sight of the facts that the Guinness Book of Records has been a standard reference work for decades, that google is the most frequently cited reason for keeping articles, and that ATA Girl's 10 year rule has absolutely no grounding in policy. Bhoeble 18:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - 35,000 non-Wikipedia Google hits [1] is pretty notable - especially for something in Africa, where far fewer people have internet access. Blackcats 18:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Apparent bad faith nomination. There's no advertising on the page and few people would describe a grueling bicycle race as a holiday. I've added the press link that downloaded when I checked. Durova 18:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Yes this is my first proposal for deletion. I have made contributions before but a profile was never required as is the case when proposing a deletion. And I take this quite seriously. The rebuttal doesn't deal with the issue raised about google, nor does it deal with the vanity issue. The M and G article is quoting the company's press release when it says 8 of the 51 (not 60 as is misquoted) participants are from South Africa. The reference to 60 is the maximum they can take so obviously the intent of the article is to sell spaces. The M and G itself describes it as pretty much what it is, a sight seeing trip. . ATA Girl 19:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am aware of no definition of "sightseeing" that includes 150km a day by bicycle from Cairo to Cape Town. The entrant limit probably represents the resources of the organizers to provide water and possible emergency care across the length of the Sahara desert. The event also provides bicycles as transportation to health care workers and promotes ecologically conscious transportation methods. Whether one views this as a distance race or a charitable tour, analogous events in my own country are noteworthy - and cover only a fraction of this distance. Just to make sure I checked several South African sightseeing tours. [2] [3] [4] Whatever you've been smoking, you should sell it in Amsterdam. Durova 08:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of sightseeing trips around the world of that daily distance. That is not a particularly grueling distance nor are the conditions when you compare it to riding in other regions. The living conditions are likely quite gruelling but that is not about a bike race. The fact of the total distance is interesting (for the few who complete it), the location is interesting.

The article quoted above in the M and G says "Cyclists will witness amazing sites on their journey and travel past game reserves and ancient temples, across the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro, and along the ancient landscape of Ethiopia’s Simian mountains and the edge of the Botswana’s Kalahari.". This is a travel promo. There is no emphasis on the competitive element in that article. The article explains the range of participation methods, racers, non racers, part way participants. In reviewing the company's web page (which now links to another vacation)it's clear that only a few participate are racers and even fewer complete the whole distance. It is described as a charitable tour and and promotion of ecological transportation (by you and others). The only qualification for participating is that you be over 18 and pay the freight. There appears to be no standards, disqualification rules etc. And it's not cheap. The racing component is minor. The fact that it is included under cycling race is not in my view appropriate. Frankly I don't know where it would belong which is why I proposed it for deletion rather than suggesting a move. If there is no home for it then it seems to me to be a vanity article.

I don't appreciate your throw away remark at the end of your comment. If Wikipedia is to have any credibility moving forward there must be proper debate. Policies such as the 10 year policy I suggested are worth investigating. Otherwise Wikipedia will become captive of the marketing and promo professionals. It's time people polished up their b.s. meters.ATA Girl 14:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unstriking speedy and bad faith per nominator statements. Durova 17:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely bad faith that you do not respond to the arguments and instead attack the person making the argument. This is not a good sign for the future of WikipediaATA Girl 20:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have indeed responded to arguments, researched your assertions, and posted the results of my findings. You disregard customary Wikipedia standards for notability and substitute your own opinion as if the community should adopt it uncritically. When other users locate additional evidence of notability you dismiss all such information on fatuous grounds. Your assertions are farfetched and unsubstantiated, such as the claim that "There are lots of sightseeing trips around the world of that daily distance. [150km/day]" If you want to become a respected part of this community I suggest you change your approach. Durova 05:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. -- JJay 21:22, 14 December 2005 (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.