Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ARFCOM: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:08, 13 August 2007

ARFCOM

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}}.

While the article does contain an assertion of notability a la media coverage, I sure can't find a thing on Google News that isn't just spamming of newspaper sites by forum members. Not speedyable, due to the assertion, but I nonetheless recommend that this be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To the contrary, there is indeed significant coverage on credible media sources. For example, archived from the NY Times website, here [1] is an article about the Send A Brick campaign. Here [2] is an article from the Washington Post. Opensourcelinuxm 06:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neither of these articles even mention the word "ARFCOM", so I'm not really sure how they're relevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Agree with Seraphimblade. Send-a-Brick might be notable in its own right but this subject fails WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 06:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OK, since you both are clearly very well-versed in the rules of Wikipedia and I'm not, can you tell me why other, less significant websites like Rotten.com and SomethingAwful.com have Wiki pages? They haven't done half of what the ARFCOM membership has done in terms of real-world achievements but they have big, long-standing Wiki pages. Why? What needs to be done to the ARFCOM page to make it acceptable? Opensourcelinuxm 06:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If ARFCOM has done something notable, then cite reliable third party sources backing up that claim. Dbromage [Talk] 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thank you Dbromage but you clearly misunderstood my comment. I wasn't trying to whine about the fact that other websites have articles; I was sincerely, seriously, and frankly inquiring: What do their wiki pages have that ARFCOM's wiki doesn't that enables them to stay while causing ARFCOM to become a candidate for deletion? Can you please answer the question? Opensourcelinuxm 06:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment To provide a more detailed answer, what we require for an article is a significant amount of nontrivial coverage of the article subject by reliable sources (newspapers, magazines, scholarly papers, generally sources which are widely regarded as reliable and undergo editorial control, fact checking, or peer review). In this case, the sources you cite might assert some notability for the Send-a-Brick campaign, but they don't even mention ARFCOM, so they cannot be used as a source regarding ARFCOM—they don't directly state that they're speaking about it, and inferring that they're indirectly speaking about it would be original research, which we do not allow. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Something Awful has 22 citations from reliable sources. Rotten Tomatoes has a very high Alexa ranking and is cited weekly in the Toronto Star. Please read WP:V and WP:RS. Dbromage [Talk] 06:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Understood. I don't think you'll be finding any media references to ARFCOM; throughout the duration of the Send-A-Brick campaign the user base was careful to keep the campaign's place of origin a secret for several reasons. If that is what is necessary in order to keep the article from deletion, it seems as if it'll have to be deleted. :( Opensourcelinuxm 06:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that case the claim fails verifiability. None of the citations describe any link between AR15.com and Send-A-Brick. Dbromage [Talk] 06:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it Right. Thank you both for your consideration; I'm going to agree that it should be deleted.Opensourcelinuxm 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 *'''Comment''' Understood. I don't think you'll be finding any media references to ARFCOM; throughout the duration of the Send-A-Brick campaign the user base was careful to keep the campaign's place of origin a secret for several reasons. If that is what is necessary in order to keep the article from deletion, it seems as if it'll have to be '''deleted'''. :( [[User:Opensourcelinuxm|Opensourcelinuxm]] 06:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 :*'''Comment'''. In that case the claim fails [[WP:V|verifiability]]. None of the citations describe any link between AR15.com and Send-A-Brick. <span style="border:1px solid #800000;">[[User:Dbromage|<font style="color:#C0C0C0;background:#800000;"><b>Dbromage</b></font>]][[User_talk: Dbromage|<font style="color:#C0C0C0;background:#800000;">&nbsp;[Talk]</font>]]</span> 06:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
-*'''Delete it''' Right. Thank you both for your consideration; I'm going to agree that it should be deleted.
+*'''Delete it''' Right. Thank you both for your consideration; I'm going to agree that it should be deleted.[[User:Opensourcelinuxm|Opensourcelinuxm]] 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)