Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Art Force For Offshoots (CAFFO)


 * 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. W.marsh 05:24, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Community_Art_Force_For_Offshoots_%28CAFFO%29


Kind of interesting but lack of notability; no sources to indicate such. CAFFO is very new so maybe in time it will be an interesting article to recreate? Marcus22 13:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you be willing to allow this article to continue exist, under perhaps stub labeling?Wavecal22 14:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Wavecal22, 'fraid Wiki don't work like that. If the subject of the article is considered insufficiently unencyclopedic - albeit at this point in time - then it will be deleted. If and when CAFFO becomes notable, as proven by independent and reliable sources, then someone can recreate the article. Marcus22 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no notability. "New" generally means "not notable", in rare cases "not notable yet". We don't create placeholder articles. --Dhartung | Talk 22:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but we do create stubs. Should this be a stub? I don't like stubs in this namespace, but if others think it belongs… Will (Talk - contribs) 22:47, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Even a stub has to refer to a sufficiently notable subject. A stub referring to an insufficiently notable subject would also be AfD'd. And then probably deleted. Marcus22 15:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. I've seen countless articles, both stubs and full articles which establish no notability. yet i think they should still exist. We are creating an encyclopedia, which "is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge" Caffo is a branch of knowledge. just because you haven't heard of it doesn't mean no one else has. It is still something in the world that there is knowledge of, so why not include it? I really see no reason to delete this article, other than to save server space, but the amount of space that one small article takes up is insignificant.Wavecal22 19:44, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It isn't about server space, its human confusion The problem for any broad scope web project is keeping the level of noise down so the information is visible. DGG 01:16, 5 December 2006 (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.