Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J3HaaD


 * 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 -- JForget  23:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

J3HaaD

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

An article without relevance or notability. Zero reliable/reputable sources to back up unverifiable claims.

You can read the author's discussion on deletion and my reply on the talk page. The article was speedied a month ago. The article was then recreated by the only author. Also a prod was removed by the only author, so here we are. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 19:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm seems real but nothing to establish . Reliable source(s) WP:RS are required. SunCreator (talk) 20:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete. No hits on gnews, ProQuest, Ebsco, or Infotrac.  I have no doubt they exist but there's nothing written about them outside of their community.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although, I have to agree with you, however can the article be moved as a user-page of the creator till the necessary reliable sources are uploaded?? The clan is in the process of getting recognized by top gaming groups in the country by more active participation and I'm sure they will find their place on Google, etc. very soon. Re-creating the whole article as such (which the creator has been doing since the last month or so) is little troublesome. He had requested for it the first time when he had created the article. I hope that wouldn't be a problem. --Sainik1 (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Moving the article.
 * I'm not against userfying the article. I'm never against userfying articles.  It just doesn't belong in the mainspace yet.  Celarnor Talk to me  20:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Although J3haad might not have any hits on the internet, but I do have heard of this gaming organisation. They have participated in pretty prominent gaming tourneys in India an I'm sure they will soon find their place on the net. As goes with gaming organisations, it takes time for them to set themselves up, but I fully support the author of the article. --Iconoclastanu (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping the article

J3HaaD is quite a famous gaming organisation of India. They have participated in quite a lot of gaming tournaments in India. The clan comprises of members of Indian Institute of Technology Guwahati, one of the top inst in India. As for the proof of there existance, i have got recorded games and videos of the games played by J3HaaD which i'd upload on youtube very soon :). Tinku.vivek (talk) 21:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Keeping the article


 * Userfy or delete. While I'm suspicious of the number of first-time editors contributing to this discussion, userfication seems perfectly acceptable.  "It will be notable in the future" fails WP:NOT, though, and I doubt reliable sources currently exist.  Anturiaethwr (talk) 21:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as this appears a long way from meeting notability and verifiability (as established by Celarnor). If at some point it does become notable, great. But until then, delete as a non-notable organizaton B figura  (talk) 22:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Userfy or delete. Per nominations and reasoning above. Renee (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The days when Wikipedia would willingly provide home pages for such things as MMORPG clans are long gone. Wikipedia is not a webhost. --Dhartung | Talk 23:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete A7 (club). This is not a notable group of people, just some club it looks like.  Admirable, but if this is just some group of gamers, this is not the place for such a page.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Userfy to a user subpage. What I saw when checking up on subpage policy was that they can be used to work on artilces. Definite effort must be made to verify notability and such as it comes in though. And subpages shouldn't be used as a way to get around other policies. I'd also suggest that saving to a "word doc" may be suitable as it also allows the user to work on the article until such time that it can be properly cited for notability and such (perhaps as a backup to any userspace problems as well) Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete gameclan, the end. (And don't give me the wiseass response that one or two gameclans have articles. 99% of the time they're not notable and this is not different.) JuJube (talk) 10:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have agreed to the fact that my article doesn't have reliable sources right now and have put up a request to shift it as a user sub-page so that I can keep editing it, and adding external links to it. It may require time, but I'm sure that I'll be soon able to do it. But I do NOT agree with your comment that "99% of the time they're not notable". This probably shows your ignorance towards online gaming today. A gaming clan today might be as popular and as notable(Note: I have read the whole page on wikipedia about notability of an article) as a music band. Hence, I think that this comment was totally unwarranted for!

--Sainik1 (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * "Totally unwarranted for"? You make my brain hurt. JuJube (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I thought you needed a brain for that? Or dont you? Do read the link eh, most of the people have it under their skull, some a lil' below.--Sainik1 (talk) 15:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Hey everybody, let's remember WP:CIVIL here. Poor grammar isn't the issue here, nor is its correction sufficient to warrant personal attacks.  Now, I think JuJube is referring to the Pokémon defense, or something like it.  Sainik1, I recommend that you read about that, as I believe it addresses your concerns.  (By the way, I also agree with Jasynnash2's suggestion that you copy the article to your computer locally, in case the outcome is "delete;" that way, you can continue to work on it, and resubmit it if you believe that it has become notable.)  Anturiaethwr (talk) 19:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional Comment: With this debate getting so hot, I was wondering whose "poor grammar" it was. Because I just did a Google search for the phrase "Totally unwarranted for": and guess what! It had 460 hits! Meaning 1st, sainik1, I'm with you, 2nd, K.O. JuJube!! And last but not the least, in typical wikipedia sense, it has awesome "notability"!!Lets make an article on it!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.20.8.166 (talk) 10:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Um? You're going to prove a statement is gramatically correct because it gets a lot of Google hits?  Now you're really making my brain hurt.  (Also the fact that you think 460 is 'a lot'.  Or did I spell that wrong?  Hey, "alot" gets over a million google hits, that makes it an actual word, amirite?) JuJube (talk) 11:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with the anonymous contributor on this one. I do think I have heard this phrase quiet a lot. I think Jujube is trying to be too agressive on this one. Chill dude! Its just wikipedia for heaven's sake! Sometimes climbing down from a debate when your stand is wrong is courageous! And a google search for it did give me around 20,000 odd results, although it doesn't mean anything. --210.212.8.60 (talk) 11:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Last comment before I'm done with this. "Totally uncalled for" is the phrase Sainik1 was looking for. "Totally unwarranted" is also correct, but not "totally unwarranted for".  And none of this has anything to do with my !vote (which is still a strong delete), so I'm done now. JuJube (talk) 13:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete. Completely non-notable group of people, with no sources and none to be found.--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   -- Fabrictramp (talk) 13:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongly Keep:I have been a frequent wikipedia user since a long time and it surprises me a lot how admins are being persistent about the deletion of this article. I had the inclination that Wikipedia was an online encyclopedia on which topic of various topics (Hobbies, music, sports,gaming, etc.) can be added. Although this group might not get any \\\\\\\"internet hits\\\\\\\", but I think there are a variety of such individuals and groups who are working hard today to get their names on the global scene and they do deserve a place here. If this article is deleted or moved, I guess all of us(non-admins,regular users) were wrong about wikipedia! You need to get your name on google on get your place on wikipedia!--210.212.8.60 (talk) 16:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You are mistaken. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a random repository of miscellaneous junk. JuJube (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sniper delete by all means necessary. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 21:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. Someoneanother 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - And can probably legitimately be speedied. Userfication is for articles while they are being worked on to bring them up to status, but that should not be used as a means of preserving information about topics that do not even make claims of notability, or are not likely to become notable in the forseeable future.  ◄   Zahakiel   ►  02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strongest Delete: Per nom. --SkyWalker (talk) 06:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. Winning a university gaming tournament does not notability make. —C.Fred (talk) 19:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong delete WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Really Speedy Delete or else every single group will insist on having their local club/ group/gang featured on Wikipedia --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 13:39, 14 April 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.