Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheists of Silicon Valley (Second nomination)

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 delete. Sango 123 (e) 17:51, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Atheists of Silicon Valley (2nd nomination)

Delete Seems pretty clearly to be a vanity article. I can't see how this is at all encyclopedic or how it meets any of Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Looks like pretty clear Vanispamcruftisement pm_shef 00:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:VSCA and WP:NN club. Royboy crashfan 00:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 01:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But break out the laundry hampers, because the socks will be here REAL soon, just like the last nomination. --Calton | Talk 01:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
STrong Delete - obvious reasons - I'll keep an eye out for irregularities.ßlηguγɛη | Have your say!!! 01:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Deletionists of Silicon Valley ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 03:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn, vanity. Sheehan (Talk) 04:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. -Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The "claims to fame" section of the article provides enough notability. Kirbytime 06:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've appeared on radio shows and in newspapers, probably more than ASV. Does that make me noteable enough for an article? No. pm_shef 06:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; quite. I've appeared on radio and newspapers, have been interviewed on TV three times, and have over a dozen publication credits. Does that make me notable? I think not. RGTraynor 15:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Ardenn 06:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:VAIN. Danny Lilithborne 07:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity, nn. --Ter e nc e Ong 09:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Claim to Fame section makes a more than enough case of natability. Imagine a world where everyone has free access to the sum total of human knowledge: this is knowledge. Loom91 09:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mirror for the web, which is the only reason I can think of to keep this. Being mentioned in newspapers and magazines isn't enough, they have column inches to fill and may be reduced to burbling about inanities on a slow news day. And similarly to Pm shef, I've appeared on BBC TV, been interviewed on BBC radio, and been quoted by the BBC, Guardian, CNN, etc. So it's pretty easy really to get in the media. Average Earthman 09:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Metamagician3000 10:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable. Since I've been on CBS a few times can I have my own article yet? RasputinAXP c 11:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like with non-notable groups of Christians, Muslims and Wiccas. -- Kjkolb 11:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Utterly non-notable. Jud e (talk,contribs,email) 13:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but this is a case study about how flawed notability is. The real problem with this article is that there's not really anything to write about the subject. This is a perma-stub. Mangojuice 13:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be vanity and non notable IrishGuy 14:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per what everyone else has covered--Tollwutig 14:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pace Kirbytime, there's knowledge, and then there's trivia. I don't want to know the location of every puddle in Nunavut, either - but it's still knowledge. Fishhead64 20:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vanity.--Ton e 21:27, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone (Calton?) seems to be coordinating attacks on atheist Wikipedia entries. [1] Human455 02:43, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment All your edits are pro-atheism, so it isn't as though you don't have an agenda yourself. IrishGuy 08:26, 14 April 2006 (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.