Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuakeAID

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. — PhilHibbs | talk 12:40, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] QuakeAID

I propose that this vote be closed, with a result of KEEP. Counting the votes is tricky given the flipflopping that has gone on, but I make it Keep:36 vs Delete:26, looks like a clear win for keepers, and IMO deletion should always warrant an overwhelming consensus anyway. If no-one objects, then I will do the changes before 12:00 GMT tomorrow. — PhilHibbs | talk 18:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sure. I stick by my delete vote, but I agree the outcome of this VfD is KEEP. --fvw* 18:38, 2005 Jan 10 (UTC)

If you stalk my habits, then you know I'm not a deletionist by nature. This article was created by an employee of the QuakeAID corporation. The reason I am listing this article is not only because it is vanity/self-promotion, but also because the authenticity of this company has been brought into question. Please correct me if I'm wrong. —RaD Man (talk)

Note: Please vote below. Discussion should take place on the talk page.

• For the time being I am casting a vote of extreme delete. —RaD Man (talk) 18:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • After discussing this with Dr Zen, I am changing my vote to that of an extreme keep. This article has significantly developed since its inception by the wouldbe spammers and misinformers at Baou. —RaD Man (talk)
    • Refer to Talk:QuakeAID#History_of_lawsuits. There is now more than enough evidence to justify an in-depth article about Mr. Greg Lloyd Smith let alone just one of his shell companies. —RaD Man (talk) 07:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. RaD Man is on some personal quest through a series of attacks without making his points clear. He states "authenticity of this company has been brought into question" -- I'd hate to be a stickler here for using the correct language, but there is no question that QuakeAID is "authentic". Perhaps what he is trying to say is that "legitimacy of this company has been brought into question" but he didn't say that. I have asked him to specify what his objection is, but he does not reply. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable company, and Wikipedia is not a billboard ("How to donate to QuakeAID"? Come on, now). Ливай | ☺ 19:20, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Interesting comment. How would you provide a link on a page which is intended to be informative as the way that someone can donate to organizations collecting donations for victims of the Indian Ocean tsnumanis? QuakeAID is the only organization that is 100% dedicated to providing relief for victims of earthquakes, and has been doing this since July 1998. Because it has done this from Greece, is perhaps why a number of US-based organizations do not record it. However, believe me, there is a world outside the US. Not all charities are US-based and or US-created. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • My objection to the donation link is that it is essentially a solicitation, requesting that the reader pay money, which is frowned upon in an encyclopedia, even for good causes. My vote to delete was based on my opinion that for any organization, there has to be some evidence that it is somehow noteworthy, that it stands out from others and is generally well-known in its field. Just doing charitable work does not make an organization encyclopedic. And contrary to the stereotype, there are actually lots of people in this country who are aware of the world outside the US, including me. I would vote according to the same policy just as readily to a non-notable American company. — Ливай | ☺ 02:49, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• If company and references to it can be found elsewhere with any frequency, keep and note fraudulence. Otherwise delete. -Fennec (はさばくのきつね) 19:25, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • By elsewhere you mean where? Which authority would satsify the users of this medium? Tax authorities in Greece, where the organization has been pay tax (no tax breaks in Greece) since 1998? --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Please pay special attention to the fact that most mentions are either in reference to the power struggle over quakeaid.com with WIPO or they are "press releases" from baou.com. [1] (Note the article was created by User:Baoutrust. —RaD Man (talk) 18:56, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I think you should pay attention to that struggle. You are at risk as well. The facts, which I suspect you have not even considered are that QuakeAID registered quakeaid.com through Network Solutions. During the first year of registration, while the amount paid $70 was still *in force*, Netsol allowed and Register.com was able to permit the registration of the domain name by another person (could be one of the people so fervently objecting to QuakeAID's presense here) and despite numerous legal attempts against Netsol, and then the registrant, it has been unable to recover its property. From my perspective, QuakeAID is the victim. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks Google-bombed. I haven't seen one source mentioning this company that I consider reliable. --kooo 19:38, Jan 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Really, well if you look alittle harder you see that a very nice guy climed a very large mountain in Turkey for us a couple years ago. There's one. Maybe you didn't look hard. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What I mean is that this organization seems to be non-notable for wikipedia. You really need to read our policies, you've broken a lot of them — such as blanking this vote and other talk pages, personal attacks, ... --kooo 10:45, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep at the present form. —kooo 23:51, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete (changed vote from delete to keep to no vote yet to delete. Final vote.) If NASA finds this organization to be credible, we should too.NASA Brownman40 23:32, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Bravo. One person looked. See there's two. There are more, but you have to want to find them. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I don't see anything on that page indicating that NASA finds QuakeAID to be credible or not. —RaD Man (talk) 23:40, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • So there you have it. RaD Man is on a personal quest. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • You're right. I'm on a personal quest to find facts. Rather than turning this into an opportunity to provide even a glimmer of substantial evidence that QuakeAID done anything more than sucker people out of their hard earned money, you've spent all your time defacing websites, spamming Wikipedia, and name calling, then following it up with misinformation over at the BAOU fakenews central (Official Wire). Meanwhile, I continue to uncover mountain after mountain of documentary evidence of repeated legal problems and disputes related to any organization even remotely affiliated with Greg Lloyd Smith. The fact that you then attempt to spin the story on Official Wire afterwards does you no favors, just as it never has with any of your past disputes. —RaD Man (talk) 06:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • There is no disclaimer on that page by NASA that says that these links have not been verified. This organization may have pulled wool over NASA's eyes, but then again this link does cast some very reasonable doubt to the claim that QuakeAID is fraudulent. Brownman40 00:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • I don't see that. The NASA page claims to be a search service and describes the QuakeAid as "spider URL." It's not a rating or evaluation any more than Google is. Presumably NASA's search would pick up any organization, credible or fraudulent, that described itself as providing disaster relief. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:42, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • QuakeAID is not mentioned on that page at this time. It is in the Google cache of a NASA page though, but not the live version of that page. In any case, this debate is not about whether QuakeAID is legit, it's about whether it should be in Wikipedia (my vote is further down). — PhilHibbs | talk 17:32, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Neither QuakeAid nor Baou is listed by http://www.give.org (BBB's philanthropic advisory serivce), http://www.charitynavigator.org or http://www.charitywatch.org. Absence of a listing means only that the organization has not been investigated. However, these organizations have a wide scope; Charity Navigator in particular has evaluated 3400 charities. Because of the danger of allowing Wikipedia to be used as a promotional vehicle for dodgy charities, I do not believe we should accept articles by charities unless they have been rated by at least one of these three organizations (and the articles should generally contain external links to the ratings). This insures that readers have access to at least one independent evaluation of the charity. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:41, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) P. S. GuideStar doesn't know anything about QuakeAID, either.
• Changing vote to weak Keep in present form, provided there is no clickable link to the QuakeAID website. And should care must be taken to keep the article neutral. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Excellent point. Brownman40 02:51, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Not really a valid point, but I dealt with it above. The organization is/was based in Greece since 1998. Recently, it established a US office. All procedures, including a number of registrations have been initiated to make it possible for tax exemption, etc., but the organizations you mention are all US based. We would not have previously contacted them and as you know, they do not seek out charities. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Shouldn't there be something on their web site about being a non-profit corporation in the eyes of the IRS? (I can't find such a notice.) Gyrofrog 03:06, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) (I guess I didn't actually vote there. So Keep because the article now addresses this concern and others.) Gyrofrog 22:03, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Already dealt with, but to be specific, QuakeAID's EIN is 20-2072945. Application for tax exemption has been made. The process is long but when complete, details of the tax exemption will be published on our website. However, that does not mean, to use RaD Man's word, that QuakeAID is authentic. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I have an EIN as well. Two, in fact. That doesn't make me a non-profit or charitable organization. So, you've filed for tax-exemption status but it has not yet been approved. I think I've heard enough. —RaD Man (talk) 07:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • Furthermore, if the organization was founded in 1998, and its now 2005... Yeeeaaah. Exactly. —RaD Man (talk) 07:38, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Well, if RaDman thinks it needs to go.... man, someone record this for blackmail later. Seriously, though, delete. hfool/Wazzup? 03:02, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Really Keep the new article. Bravo on callling their bluff. hfool/Roast me 23:30, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • That's alittle scary. If RaD Man thinks... Let's hope these two users actually know each other and we don't have another example of Internet love here. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • It's a jocular reference to RaD Man (talk)'s well-known and frequently articulated belief that articles should be deleted only in extreme cases. A VfD nomination by him carries extra weight and deserves careful consideration for that very reason. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Not good reasoning, through. If his judgement is so poor that he can't recognise cases for deletion that are obvious to others, it doesn't make me more confident about this--on the face of it--quite inexplicable campaign to delete an article on a notable subject. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:49, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • That would only be so if one accepted that deletionists generally showed good judgement, which you don't.Dr Zen 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
        • I'm a mergist. Or was that intended as an insult? In any case the false dichotomy should be evident to you: the complement of the set of extreme inclusionists is not the set of deletionists. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:39, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • A mergist is a deletionist lite. It wasn't intended as an insult. I don't have a problem with deletionist views. They're held honestly by people who are pursuing the same goals I am. I'm not an "extreme inclusionist", Tony. That's rather rude. I don't belong to any faction. I am an encyclopaedist. I'm for a great encyclopaedia, nothing else. Dr Zen 07:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
          • For Reene's definition of a mergist, with which I concur, see m:Association of Mergist Wikipedians.
          • If you read the thread you will see that it was another user, Radman, who was described as an extreme inclusionist, and this was advanced as a reason to support his proposal to delete this article. I apologise for not making it clearer to whom I was referring. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 08:37, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, seriously nn, probably vanity. Wyss 03:21, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • The article published to this service is 100% factual. There is nothing except facts in it. I defy anyone to provide a single example of any vanity. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • If it were created primarily to serve your interests rather than the interests of Wikipedia's readership, then it would be vanity. Self-serving = it's all about me = vanity. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:22, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but mark fraudulent, information is good, regardless if it is good or evilPatcat88 04:56, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Delete. Somebody in the WWW 06:11, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • If you do that, mark every article as fraudulent OR prepare to be in court. --BAOU 06:36, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Ooh, a legal threat. Wow, we've never seen one of those before. Delete, and block the user for making legal threats. RickK 08:25, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
  • I'd just like to comment that I have not seen anything to indicate that this is a fraudulent organization. If it is, it should be swiftly reported to the authorities. My main concern is that QuakeAID seems questionable at best, and it doesn't bode too well when the same single user (User:Baoutrust) is spamming Wikipedia with a bunch of other self-promotional articles to boot. —RaD Man (talk) 05:13, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • I have waited for this one. SPAMMING? There are 4 pages. OfficialWire. Note: No one complained about this one. QuakeAID The attack is really from one user RaD Man, who will not specify the objection. Kaith No different than any article about an artist. George Dracos Again, no one objected to that article and it is pretty-much the same as Kaith. I find it interesting that even the rants/attacks are not thorough.

• Delete: DCEdwards1966 10:16, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)changed to keep after the recent changes. DCEdwards1966 17:33, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete: promo, no evidence of notability. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:20, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Reluctant keep, if only for the fact that WP appears to be the only resource on the web that summarizes this organization's status as a charity. That summary (and pretty much that alone) is a valuable piece of information. --MarkSweep 10:55, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • IMO, a piece of information is not "valuable as fact" anymore if it's factual accuracy is in serious doubt. However, it is still very "valuable as doubt" as a piece of information though. --Godric 18:11, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC) (since it's back to fact again now)
• Totally obvious scam. Delete. Gzornenplatz 14:34, Jan 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, a definately-non-notable probably-scam. --fvw* 16:58, 2005 Jan 3 (UTC)

• Keep (was delete > leaning towards keeping) --Godric 08:41, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC), (old reasons but still applicable >) still because the factual accuracy of its proclaiming to be a "charitable organization" is seriously questionable, (therefore needed to be illustrated clearly) --Godric 20:01, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC), and please see detail of my take here.
  • I agree, but that is not a criterion for deletion. The question is, is this a notable, encyclopedic topic? (I don't know the answer to that, see talk page for my opinion on this.) --MarkSweep 18:29, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable, possible scam. Jayjg | (Talk) 21:14, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep, as the article as currently re-written is notable. Jayjg | (Talk) 17:36, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, doesn't appear to be notable. As for being a scam, though, if it was a notable scam, I wouldn't have a problem with us having an article on it. But it doesn't seem notable to me. - Vague | Rant 04:14, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Dori | Talk 04:18, Jan 4, 2005 (UTC)
• Consign to bit-bucket. Non-notable, vanity, scam, kitchen sink. Delete this iteration, with the understanding that the article be re-created documenting the allegations against QuakeAID. Mackensen
  • This vote should probably count as a Keep since, the change mentioned is made.  ALKIVAR™ 18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(talk) 04:21, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Agree with MarkSweep. This obvious scam should be exposed for what it is. GRider\^talk 18:57, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm reconsidering my vote now, because I've found more tricky dispute cases involving MPC-Trust/Baou-Trust on the web which they eventually lost. I'll add the new findings into Talk page. (note: Baou_Trust has been deleted today, but we can always start a new one for investigation purpose.)

Actually we can't use it due to "Baou_Trust" being copyrighted, and now deleted, right?

• Keep. Looks better now. +sj + 14:33, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep The prominent WIPO dispute on the QuakeAID.org domain name alone would merit an article. The goings on between the original registrants and various other companies, the Desmond publishing group, etc are also encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 10:59, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • May I inquire on what your definition of Prominence is (see google results)? (only 46 hits on Google!? 12 when duplications' omitted). Even though Google is not the standard index of Prominence, it's indeed very prominent to serve as a meaningful gauging method). But only 12 hits on google is way too low for me to grade that as prominent. By the way, WIPO handles 6000 disputes, involving 10000 domains since 1999 - 2003. A dispute (quakeaid.com) only generates 12 hits on google is way below prominent by my standard. In short, the quakeaid.com WIPO dispute alone does not merit this article's existence --Godric 13:47, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • As you suggest, prominence isn't something determined by Google. The QuakeAID case is cited as a common law precedent in the UDRP guide. It's unequivocally encyclopedic. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 18:04, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed and thanks. Here's the link to the precedent, and I wikified your response above.

• Delete. If the article is kept, I strongly suggest that we don't link to it the website (much like our policy with wikipediasucks), so we don't raise its Google ranking and so users don't access it as much. ugen64 03:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Either delete or keep with some serious highlights about the (I believe) questionable practices. I trust RadMan on this. Feel free to sue me. --JuntungWu 05:35, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• As I explain on RadMan's talk page, I believe there should be an article on Baou Trust, with this page redirecting to it. I guess that's a keep of sorts. BTW, a list of allegations is not allowed within our policy, unless they have been made by others (no original research) but a listing of the facts is. The article should quote the response from Baou about RadMan in the interests of NPOV (including all views means including theirs too).Dr Zen 05:52, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but make it NPOV - the article has changed considerably, so that the original reason for the RfD certainly does not apply any more. However, the current version is so anti-QuakeAID that it also raises questions about NPOV. -- AlexR 13:51, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, if it is fraudulent then the owner will just re-create it in a few months and it might not get noticed for long enough for someone to donate. Kept as is, people can see the change history and realise that the organisation's validity is disputed. The fact that it is disputed makes it notable. Deciding on what to include in Wikipedia on the basis of its affect on Google Rank is daft. — PhilHibbs | talk 17:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep in its current form it serves as a warning perhaps the easiest found on the internet showing the possibility of fraud.  ALKIVAR™ 18:19, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Keep now that it's not self-promotion. Rhobite 22:37, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and include a comment in the source to make sure nobody provides a live link. Zocky 04:29, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Reminds me of the Sollog affair, in which instance a terrible piece of advertising was turned into a readable, entertaining article which keelhauled the subject with his own, er, petard. In the manner of Louis Theroux or 'Overnight', a gripping documentary about the obnoxious Troy Duffy, or for that matter Pygmalion, albeit that Eliza Doolittle was likeable even when she was common. For great righteousness the article needs to be a lot more neutral, however. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:17, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Given that said on great righteousness & a-lot-more neutrality, it seems to me that you know exactly what you would do; I encourage you to try to neutralize it a bit, then we all can see the before & after comparison. --Godric 13:56, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep to the extreme. At first, I thought it was a terrible mistake to list it as VfD, until I read Radman1's VfD description. Now I realise that a lot of hard work went into this article to change it into what it is today. It will help others doing research into this pseudo-charity, although I agree with Godric that it seems a little POV right now. --Deathphoenix 14:13, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comments

Note: Discussion should take place on the talk page. There is also a great deal of content on the main article's talk page (talk:QuakeAID) as well.

• Comment The FBI state on Wednesday that "False Web sites have been established that pretend to be legitimate relief organizations asking for donations - one of which contains an embedded Trojan exploit that can infect your computer with a virus if accessed." Under the circumstances, I don't think we should be providing a clickable link to any organization claiming to provide tsunami relief unless it's on a well-vetted list (like the USAID list). The last time I tried to sanitize a link to a dodgy organization—a diploma mill—I was beaten bloody and retired in defeat. Does retaining this article means retaining a clickable link to QuakeAID? Will those who vote "keep" accept the link being tagged "nowiki" or does keeping the article mean keeping a working, intact link? Dpbsmith (talk) 14:49, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I voted to keep, but I agree that we shouldn't provide clickable links. The article was probably created to increase visibility of a dubious organization. Since direct links appear to affect things like Google's page rank, I'm against providing a working link in this case. It's one thing to be inclusionist, but that doesn't mean we have do every sufficiently notable spammer's bidding. --MarkSweep 14:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
    • Comment: This is agreeable to me. My only reason for voting keep is to expose these fraudulent spammers for who they really are. GRider\^talk 17:23, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment: IANAL, but may I suggest extreme caution in our wording during this encyclopedic process in order to avoid unnecessary legal burden, given that we all somewhat experienced user:baoutrust's vigilance in defending herself. (see here, here, here). Alternatively, we can consult some lawyer friends for extra legal awareness too! --Godric 20:27, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
      • May I also call for any interested editor to backup all QuakeAID-related GFDL material for future reference, in case of the mysterious Speedy-Delete happens again. Thanks. --Godric 20:48, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

• Comment:in all of this meandering discssion I have yet to see the QuakeAid or Baoutrust representative offer any evidence about their past contributions to charities, or how they have spent any of the monies they have collected since 1998 in Quake relief. Would the person from QuakeAid care to provide this forum with any links to such evidence? Such a simple action would quickly move this discussion forward, I would think. (Comment left unsigned.)
  • They've been oddly silent. Usually people who try to promote a business or POV, and see the article get NPOVed before their eyes, get quite upset and try to revert or delete the article, often saying they're "withdraw ing their permission" to use the material they contributed under GFDL. Either the QuakeAid people have cut their losses and given up, which is unusually sensible, or just possibly this is the calm before the litigious storm. Rhobite is right: we need to be very careful to keep the article NPOV. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:06, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Comment: This ain't yellow pages, it ain't the guide to helping people who have been earthquaked. We don't give recommendations and endorsements. QuakeAID's domain figured in a WIPO case that set a precedent, which makes it encyclopedic. QuakeAID is, for better or worse, listed as a foreign disaster relief organization by at least one US Federal government agency, which makes it encyclopedic. If you think the content of the entry is bad, perform a cleanup. But this is clearly not a case for deletion. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:59, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• What makes something "encyclopaedic" is that it is treated comprehensively in an encyclopaedia. Please don't encourage the use of "encyclopaedic" as a synonym for "notable", because as is clear to anyone who owns a dictionary it isn't one. Actually, check out WordNet: "broad in scope or content". Like it!Dr Zen 06:25, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Encyclopedic in the context of Wikipedia is defined at Wikipedia:Encyclopedic.

Yes. A page should have what you'd expect under the title. A subject cannot itself be "encyclopaedic" under that definition.

You yourself have chided people for using the word "notable" in a context unrelated to individual people. I think my usage here is consistent with Wikipedia policy. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 07:24, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I noted that you avoided "notable" by employing what you take to be a synonym. I'm asking you not to because it encourages a reading of "encyclopaedic" that is not borne out by the word's meaning or by our policy. I can only ask, Tony. You're welcome to continue to do it.Dr Zen 07:57, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Encyclopedic: "Articles need to be of sufficient importance to be included in Wikipedia. This policy attempts to define which subjects are suitable for Wikipedia." (bold and italic are in the original).

My reading of Wikipedia:Encyclopedic is that the subject matter does have a bearing on whether an article is encyclopedic.

Here in VfD we don't (or shouldn't) judge article content so much as whether an article has encyclopedic potential. I disagree that I misuse the term. The encyclopedic criterion does support a more general equivalence of your own restrictive application of the term "notable", although there is rather more to it than a synonym. As a mergist I'm keenly aware that many subjects, while they may have little or no encyclopedic potential, at least for the time being, can be covered very well within articles on more general subjects. VfD is where we make such decisions on an article-by-article basis. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 11:03, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.