Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Warps


 * 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 of the debate was delete (5 del, 1 smerge, 1 keep). - ulayiti (talk)  17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Warps
nn game playing society. User:Zoe|(talk) 22:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable local game club.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 08:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as one of the four largest societies in University College Cork and organizers of the largest gaming convention in the Republic of Ireland. Disclaimer: I am a member. Stifle 18:53, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Please consider adding some reason for deletion other than "nn" or "non-notable". All that means is "I think this article should be deleted". Please tell us why! Stifle 18:54, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I did. I think this article should be deleted because the gaming group is not notable.  This is a perfectly valid, time-tested, well-established reason for deleting.  User:Zoe|(talk) 19:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * This doesn't seem to be a popular reason for deletion these days, but you're entitled to choose it. As a deletionist, I try to avoid it myself. Stifle 22:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Since lack of notability is a de jure reason for speedy deletion, what makes it less of a valid reason for non-speedy deletion? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Lack of notability is not a reason for speedy deletion. You may be confusing it with a lack of any assertion of notability. Please see the criteria for speedy deletion. Stifle 21:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I've cleaned it up a bit. Will do so more soon. Stifle 21:50, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: If this is kept, it should be moved to WARPS as that is the society's real name. Stifle 21:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' Due to the rewrite and the lack of number of participants, I think we could use some more comments here, thank you. W.marsh 20:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. I'm concerned that it is not encyclopedic, in the sense that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia.  Encyclopedias generally assert notability of their subject in the introduction.  I finished the entire article and was left uncertain why the article author felt I, or anyone, might spend time reading about this topic.  I could be convinced otherwise with a stronger assertion of notability, but at the moment I am inclined to believe that the subject is inherently unencyclopedic due to its lack of notability. Ikkyu2 22:30, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Slight Merge and Redirect to University College Cork or, preferably, a new article with a name like 'University College Cork student groups.' There's no reason to have a separate page for every student group of every University. --Karnesky 00:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Their forum doesn't have enough traffic to even show up on Alexa Ruby 00:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added a quick proposal for a rewrite in the article discussion page. I have removed some of what I considered to be non-encyclopedic information, and added some factual information that was provided in this discussion.  I have absolutely no knowledge of the subject matter, so I'm sure there are technical errors, but hopefully it provides a basis for cleaning and keeping the article if the claims for notability can be verified (e.g. largest gaming convention in the Republic of Ireland).  If these claims cannot be properly verified, I will lean towards delete. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 03:37, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Would it be acceptable to write a new article, one that would show that the society is of note? Or would it be more adviseable to add UCC societie's as an extension and have WARPS under that? 14:42 February 15 2006 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by QuicksilverK (talk • contribs)
 * Add'l Comment I have moved my proposed rewrite into the article itself (I guess that means I re-wrote it, huh?). I have also added the verify template to draw attention to my concern of verifiable sources.  It seems as if the group may have a degree of notability, but as I stated above, I would want verifiable sources of these claims added to the article in order to keep it. --Bugwit grunt / scribbles 16:32, 15 February 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.