Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theroom35


 * 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 per db-author. Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 21:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Theroom35

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

I declined the speedy G11 myself, as I don't quite see it as blatant spamming, but I feel, due to lack of reliable sources establishing why this may be notable (after doing a quick look at a couple of engines of course), I think a deletion discussion is in order here. MuZemike 20:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello Muzemike, Thank you very much for the time you took to revise this discussion and for all your explanations.

I have read all the different links to the pages about creation/deletion of articles that you kindly attached to your explanations and I would like to share with you why, nevertheless, I support this article meets Wikipedia’s criteria for inclusion.

As I already had the opportunity to state so to a Wikipedian more experienced than me who warned me about this article (GSD 11), I thoroughly understand the need to regulate the creation of new articles. In this frame, notability and reliable sources constitute of course important criteria. Yet, to me, the way used to verify this notability might not be completely relevant to the subject covered in this article, whose place is, I think, in Wikipedia.

I wrote this article precisely because I consider Wikipedia as the closest model to an ideal encyclopedia. I wrote this article because Wikipedia is a living encyclopedia that enables immediate access to knowledge without waiting for the next edition of a book or the referencing of other sources in search engines I wrote this article because Wikipedia has the ability to work at variable scales: Wikipedia articles do not only reflect the most significant achievements of the human being but also its more modest attempts. I wrote this article because my ground experience as a writer combined with my attentive experience as a Wikipedia reader shows me that its sphere of interest is permanently growing and that many people – but, indeed, not everybody – expect to find this article on Wikipedia. I wrote this article because this collaborative encyclopedia gives access to encyclopedic information (neutral, objective, descriptive, enlightening...) about a subject without waiting for this subject to be of universal interest. I wrote this article because I think Wikipedia offers a unique opportunity to anyone convinced that he or she can bring something to the common edifice to do so. I wrote this article because I think the internet is not just a place to state one’s own point of view but, above all, a project where anyone who wants to make the mankind brighter has the ability to do it. I wrote this article because I am convinced its place is in Wikipedia and nowhere else.

Of course, a search on engines usually enables to evaluate the level of notability of a universal subject that is eligible for a article on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, I tend to support that this logic can show limits when an encyclopedic subject is not relayed by internet-format sources. In this case it might be reducing to restrict oneself to reliable sources available online.

Regarding the everyday-growing attention generated within my community – whose information sources do not necessarily stem from the Web at the time being – and out of it, I think that this article contributes to an enlightening effort about this project.

For my first article created on Wikipedia, I did my best to keep its ton and content neutral, trying this way to bring an unbiased piece of information and an impartial synthesis of what is being written or said by people aware of this project.

Anyway, I want to thank you again for having launched this discussion. I feel confident this will enable a collaborative improvement of this article which, I believe, is in line with Wikipedia’s genuine spirit. --Roger Elie (talk) 16:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete. When you look through the apparently impressive "references", one thing becomes apparent.  They're all about Facebook, or Twitter, or "cloud computing" (now there's a red flag phrase) and other things this website wants to analogize itself to.  None of them are about "Theroom35".  This is a non-notable web startup. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteThis article contains no information on the subject from outside sources, thus none of the content regarding the subject can be confirmed per WP:Verifiable. The notable sources listed in the article do not refer to the subject but rather to other, notable groups and organizations. Whatever the creator's intent in producing the article might be, consensus on this project has concluded that content must be reliable to be encyclopedic, and if there are no 3rd-party sources to provide information, then there is no way to know if the information is credible. If it becomes common procedure to allow content without requiring proper sourcing, then the credibility of the entire project suffers. Mrathel (talk) 15:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Convinced I have been convinced by your points. Thank you very much for your time and explanation. As creator of this article I will ask for its speedy deletion and work on more notable subjects. --Roger Elie (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2009 (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.