Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EMSSA (2nd nomination)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 delete. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 02:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
[edit] EMSSA
Fails to assert notability, appears to be a fairly unremarkable website. No evidence of passing WP:WEB. Survived a previous afd, because nobody voted, hence not a speedy. MER-C 13:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete fails WP:WEB, can't find any references except directory listings and ads. No sources cited. Hut 8.5 15:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep for several reasons:
- eMSSA is South Africa's first martial arts discussion group - coming up for 10 years old - which has significance
- It has hundreds of members, and is an important resource to them. If you are not interested in martial arts in the southern African region, that's fine - but it is of interest to people who do live and train there. Not everything is as big as it is in America.
- Reference to the site not being notable is irrelevant - it's a discussion group, not a site. Problem is that Wikipedia has a policy of now allowing links to discussion forum sites (see Betacommand's link removal in History), but that takes away the entry's raison d'etre - and this should therefore not be used to judge the article. ThirteenthGreg 22:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as original research, and as "hundreds" of members is neither sourced nor remotely noteworthy. My gym has hundreds of members. Feeeshboy 00:05, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Keep as the arguments for deletion are even weaker than what they are saying about the article. No point in picking one point, contesting it, then ignoring the rest. Article covers an organization which has some age and some community. Can we insist on an improvement to the article instead of deletion? 81.129.102.116 23:00, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's easy to say that arguments for deletion are weak, but no "keep" argument has addressed the fact that the primary notability criterion required of all wikipedia articles has not been satisfied, and can not be if there are no independent published sources. Feeeshboy 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment. The primary notability criterion says "A topic is notable if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", not "A topic is notable only if it has received significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Thus, it leaves open the possibility that topics failing to meet the primary notability criterion may still be deemed notable... presumably by case-by-case consensus, but it doesn't say. Sancho (Review me) 07:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's easy to say that arguments for deletion are weak, but no "keep" argument has addressed the fact that the primary notability criterion required of all wikipedia articles has not been satisfied, and can not be if there are no independent published sources. Feeeshboy 23:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Article does not meet the general guideline at WP:N or the notability consensus specific to websites at WP:WEB. I see no compelling reason or particular assertion of notability for inclusion.--Kubigula (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
- 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.
