Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/South African wireless user groups


 * 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 keep. John254 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

South African wireless user groups

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

Article does not meet WP:N, in that, none of the sources listed, except maybe two, meet what is required, as outlined at WP:N. Most of the sources are articles from internet-based publications that deal in internet and telecommunications, meaning that they are not independent from the subject, and even further, some of the references are primary sources.

Since the requirement of significant, reliable 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject is not met, this article does not meet WP's inclusion policy. —  Dæ dαlus Contribs  19:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Internet-based sources can write about networking topics independently.  That's not what "independent from the subject" means; otherwise Time magazine would not be a reliable source for information about the printing industry!  It looks to me as if there is just enough sourcing here to indicate a minimum level of notability.  Powers T 20:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Please bother to actually read my post. I see three sources that are independent from the subject.  I never said anything about a source being internet-based, what I did say was that only three of the sources listed are independent from the subject, all the rest are centered around subjects like the internet and telecommunications.  The fact is, is that you cannot trust a source that is not independent from the subject because it will always have a bias against it.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Please bother to read mine. My comment specifically addressed your assertion that a source "centered around ... the internet and telecommunications" cannot be considered independent when they write about the internet and telecommunications.  Regardless, if you see three independent sources, I don't understand what the grounds for deletion are.  Powers T 14:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. There seems to be a lot of activity related to WUGs in South Africa, a lot of organizations involved, so the article appears significant in that sense. It is broadly sourced in the sense that it covers a range of related topics and each has different sources. The sources are not great - a lot are from the non-profit groups involved, although some are more independent. But it seems likely that other editors will contribute with better sources, given the amount of activity that seems to be going on in the area, and some of the sources do seem quite independent of (although interested in) the subject. This from the editor who did the recent expansion - probably somewhat biased after doing the work. (Is there a reason why this is categorized under "Media and Music?".  Would not "Telecommunications" or perhaps "WiFi" be more appropriate?) Aymatth2 (talk) 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 *  Note - As said, given the sources available, the article does still not meet WP:N, WP:N requires significant sources. Three sources is not significant.  Most(aside from the three) do not meet the requirements posted for sources at WP:N.  If wireless groups in SA were truly notable, there should be many more sources that are independent from the subject listed, however, there are not.  It's a given that a publication about telecommunications is going to write about a wireless group, hence why the source must be independent from the subject.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The number of available categories for AfD is extremely limited, though I think Category:AfD debates (Web or internet) may have been a better choice. I'll move it there.  Powers T 23:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Plenty of citations. LtPowers' makes sense - you can be on the Internet and write about the Internet while being considered independent. Ancemy (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Only about three of those citations meet WP:N, please read the aforementioned policy, just because an article has a lot of citations, does not make it notable, you must make sure that each citation meets WP:N.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notability does not appear to be an issue. Ecoleetage (talk) 02:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note - Please take the time to read WP:N. Notability is not established by a lot of sources, it's established by a lot of sources that meet the requirements stated at WP:N.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs ' 05:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The notability guidelines do not specify a minimum number of reliable independent sources, although they suggest "multiple". You admit there are three.  How many more do you want?  Powers T 14:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 05:52, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. These groups are not notable individually, but I see no reason not to have an aggregate article on the movement/sub-culture/whatever, even if it is too fringe for significant secondary coverage. WP:NOTE is a tool, not a law of nature; in this case common sense should override it. 9Nak (talk) 11:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Provided references and content proves sufficient notability to me. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 06:21, 11 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.