| Revision as of 02:06, 15 July 2006 editWeevlos (talk | contribs)36 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:07, 15 July 2006 edit undoSamuel Blanning (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users21,108 edits reply to ViaNext edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| # The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) | # The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.) | ||
| I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet ]. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. '''Keep''' ] 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet ]. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. '''Keep''' ] 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ::Newsworthy? Then where are the news articles? Because I searched a database of hundreds of newspapers with tens of thousands of articles, and came up with zilch. As for slashdot, it does not have the fact-checking process required of a secondary source. I think ] better than I could in the current ] debate about ]. --]<sup>]</sup> 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
| Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --] 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --] 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * As a fan of Bantown for many years now, I think this article sucks and should be completely rewritten or not written at all. '''Strong Delete''' with extreme prejudice. --] 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | * As a fan of Bantown for many years now, I think this article sucks and should be completely rewritten or not written at all. '''Strong Delete''' with extreme prejudice. --] 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 02:07, 15 July 2006
Bantown
An utterly non-notable group of nerds - sorry, hackers - whose article fails all criteria of WP:BIO, in particular no multiple independent reliable coverage (the sole source is Slashdot, which doesn't meet WP:RS). Damned if I know why, but I tried searching on Factiva, and came up with nothing. I'm sure they get a lot of Google hits, but who cares? Delete. Sam Blanning 01:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom--Jusjih 01:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Bantown meet the two following criteria of WP:BIO:
- Persons achieving renown or notoriety for their involvement in newsworthy events
- The person has been the primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. (Multiple similar stories describing a single day's news event only count as one coverage.)
I fail to see why Slashdot does not meet WP:RS. Please could you point out why Slashdot is not a reliable source. Keep Via strass 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- Newsworthy? Then where are the news articles? Because I searched a database of hundreds of newspapers with tens of thousands of articles, and came up with zilch. As for slashdot, it does not have the fact-checking process required of a secondary source. I think Kotepho summarised it better than I could in the current WP:DRV debate about Eon8. --Sam Blanning 02:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Notability or non-notability aside (and I lean towards non-notable) of the subject, this article itself is a wreck. I vote delete until someone is willing to give this group more than just lip-service; perhaps then we can see whether they belong in the encyclopedia. --66.92.130.57 02:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- As a fan of Bantown for many years now, I think this article sucks and should be completely rewritten or not written at all. Strong Delete with extreme prejudice. --Weevlos 02:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)