Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undernet Philosophy Channel
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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, regrettably. DS 03:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non-noteworthy Undernet IRC channel. No assertion of notability, no references or citations, etc. after about 45 days of existing; no evidence that it meets WP:WEB. -Silence 01:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or Speedy IRC channel, nn. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable. —Khoikhoi 02:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete nn per nom AdamBiswanger1 02:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom --Pak21 09:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per nom. - Motor (talk) 09:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --mtz206 (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I wish to contribute to this article and help make it noteworthy. I am a newcomer to wikipedia users and do not know how everything works yet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Supersemicolon (talk • contribs)
- Unfortunately, it is not possible to "make an article noteworthy"; an article's topic has to already be noteworthy, and it's our job to make an article comprehensive, high-quality, and unbiased. If an article's topic isn't noteworthy, there's nothing we can do: we have to delete it. If it becomes noteworthy at any point in the future, we can always recreate it. You can also freely transfer all the information on this page to an off-Wikipedia website so it isn't lost. But if the article's not noteworthy, no amount of improving it will do any good; if the article is a noteworthy subject matter, meeting requirements like WP:WEB, then all you need to do is provide reputable citations/references to verify that the content is valid and significant enough. -Silence 09:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.