Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fawm


 * 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 no consensus. I am giving this the benefit of doubt for now. It has developed. Let us see whether it develops further. Bduke (talk) 08:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Fawm

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

Delete fails WP:N. no WP:RS.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: Google brings up well over 7,000 web results. I was going to add Unreferenced, cleanup and uncategorized in that order before you beat me to it. --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 08:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, some hints in google search do not establish notability, many of the them are blogs and non-reliable sources. Third party reliable sources only establish notability.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 08:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why are you wanting to delete this article? It is about a valid organization/site/event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.163.163.160 (talk) 04:26, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that it is about a valid organization/site/event, but the question is of notability. Reliable sources lacking, notability has not established.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete I find ghits but little evidence of RS coverage apart from this article. It appears to be a non-notable Nanowrimo type project. Travellingcari (talk) 17:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Do Not Delete The page has now been overhauled with references, categories, and some facts either corrected or summarized. I expect if this article is deleted it will only resurface again, as the FAWM project appears to grow in size and cultural impact each year. Also -- the entry should be listed under "FAWM", not "Fawm." I don't know how to change this. Tatou27 (talk) 06:14, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment two of those sources are blogs, which are not generally considered reliable sources. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 12:41, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Which are blogs? TCT is a 20K+ Circulation Newspaper, Pitchfork and PopMatters are well-respected online cultural criticism magazines with broader readership than Spin Magazine (Alexa rankings). Note:76.201.157.35 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC) — 76.201.157.35 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Correction the first pitchfork media appeared to be a blog, my mistake. I'm still not sure they qualify as reliable sources, I'll leave that aspect for someone else. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:19, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Please don't delete" - makes no sense to delete this and yet leave links to the RPM challenge, NaNoWriMo and others. This is valid, I know because I'm taking part. I'm in the UK which should tell you something about the international spread of this project. And as Tatou27 stated above, it's FAWM, as an acronym, not Fawm. Apologies for my less than eloquent argument, I don't know much about posting to Wiki, but I'm passionate about this project and I'd like to see it continue to be represented. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesstrel (talk • contribs) 12:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)  — Kesstrel (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF as it's not a valid reason for this article to be kept. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 12:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm also sorry to see according to rules of use that my comment will almost certainly be ignored because I have made few other edits. This may be because I know something about this, as I am involved as a participant. I am not confident enough using Wiki to post normally, and so haven't done so. I hope that you will appreciate that I am not acting maliciously. What sort of "reliable sources" do you need that would validate this article? If Wiki is for everyone, and FAWM is getting a high number of hits on google (regardless of whether they are blogs or otherwise) surely keeping this is not harming anyone? I'm happy to try to find validating sources, but two are already listed (pitchfork and madison) in addition to the several thousand google hits. What else do you guys need? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesstrel (talk • contribs) 13:03, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Blogs are not considered to be reliable sources because there is no editorial control, people can say what they want regardless if it's true whereas content in Wikipedia needs to me verifiable from reliable sources. I'm sure you're here in good faith but it's important to understand Wiki guidelines regarding articles. This article may be kept, we don't know yet. TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 15:09, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
 * How long do I have to provide a source? BBC Radio York plan to do a piece on FAWM on monday morning. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesstrel (talk • contribs) 14:36, 29 February 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.