Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CTWUG


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 17:43, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

CTWUG

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article about local hobbyist club with about 60 members, founded two years ago. Fails the general notability criterion (no independent reliable sources). This cannot be considered a newbie's mistake, as I had already explained to the article creator that even if a project has laudable goals (and its philosophy maybe aligns somehow with that of Wikipedia), that doesn't justify a promotional article about it on Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Notability not established per guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete More evidence of notability is needed.ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete No coverage found in Google news search. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 09:18, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Should Ptawug be included in this AfD or listed separately? Though better written and organised it is essentially the same entry for a different city, with the same lack of secondary sources. 9Nak (talk) 17:37, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Does this article http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/6180.html not constitute an independent reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.145.231.139 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment Why not mark ALL the wireless networks across the world for deletion ? Why is it only the South African networks that are picked on by wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wireless_network_organizations —Preceding unsigned comment added by Protzkrog (talk • contribs) — Protzkrog (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * RE: Point 2 Google news search Proper | Maybe next time try not use Australia news
 * Delete - one of a whole cluster of articles about tiny non-notable SouthAfrican usergroups, all of which should really be included in this discussion. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, as usual, is irrelevant and ineffectual as an argument for retention. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  20:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * and the tiny ones in Australia, USA, Indonesia, France, Greece, UK, India ? will they be deleted too ? why is it that only the African wireless users groups are targeted ? please answer the question ? User:Protzkrog
 * If they have no substantial coverage by impartial third-party sources, certainly; that goes without saying. One of the ones you mentioned by name had multiple articles in local newspapers and magazines; all you're offering with these articles is local userforums and the like. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:03, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Please have a look at www.myadsl.co.za it is a local technology NEWS site, it contains a forum as well (as do many US news sites), we are sorry that dont have articles in international or US papers yet. Please fact check all the other wireless users groups accross the world and treat them the same as the African ones.User:Protzkrog 4 December 2008.
 * MyADSL is a non-notable source, and just about the only one for this and its sister articles. I agree with you about the equitable treatment issue, of course: not just for wireless usergroups, but for Mac User Groups, etc. Alas, "noble goals" do not equal "notable group"; this would not be the first article I've deleted or argued to delete, even though I considered it to have admirable goals and purposes. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  16:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Maybe we should start a afriwiki, just like the real world we'll be excluded, and left to our own Wynand Karsten (talk) 14:58, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment - I am honestly surprised that anyone would want too delete this page. Reading the comments and guidelines (notability guidelines) it is clear that you can argue any side of the argument. But by reading the article and understanding the significance of community projects like these, I would not want my name next to a comment motivating deletion. Just this morning I watched SKY news where they emphasized the importance of small community projects and the impact of these projects. If this group grows to a size of 20 000 users would you still so mightily advocate deletion? LouisZA This comment applies to the deletion notice on PTAWUG aswell User:LouisZA 15:31 3 December 2008
 * Comment I suggest the entities be combined into a single article (with redirects). The have some notability and I think they're worth including, but not as stand alone articles. Services such as these can be a very big deal to areas of the world with limited, no, or expensive services, and there does appear to be some media coverage in the articles and I believe more could be found on the issue. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:21, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable, without RSs. If there are more of these, and all have limited notability, then a merged article would be better (notability is for existance of articles, a lower threshold for section in wider topic is usually used). But as this isn't a group AfD, is no way to enforce merge of others, so delete this.Yobmod (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2008 (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.