This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Weevlos (talk | contribs) at 02:06, 15 July 2006. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 02:06, 15 July 2006 by Weevlos (talk | contribs)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
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)