Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QuakeAID (2nd nomination)

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. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 05:12, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

QuakeAID (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

I'm having difficulty seeing how this organization is or was notable. It's claim to fame appears to be not being listed on a number of prominent charity directories. The "Corporate relations and history" section is essentially an attack page based on original research, and exclusively cites press releases from the organization's parent company, the links to which are, unsurprisingly, no longer valid. The "Wikipedia controversy" is original research (a point on which Jimbo agrees). The "QuakeAID.com dispute with WIPO" section is based entirely on primary sources, and seems, though I lack any expertiese in this area, to be a fairly unnotable IP dispute. I looked for sources on Google and elsewhere, and couldn't find any reputable secondary sources establishing any notability here. The previous AfD, from January 2005, seemed to be mostly concerned with the article as self-promotion, a concern addressed perhaps too far in the other direction during and after the discussion. Maxamegalon2000 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It might not be popular around here, but this organization is notable for opposing Wikipedia. The controversy is very far from "original research"--just google WikipediaClassAction.org--there are 1,690 hits. Jimbo and others might not like this fact, but we can't just scrub every anti-Wikipedia group off Wikipedia, especially when the group is as notable as these people are. Qworty 01:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It's true that this organization has had controversy with Wikipedia and the Intellectual Property Organization. But those incidents don't seem to be widely reported by reliable sources like newspapers, at least when I searched for "QuakeAID" -wikipedia. This implies limited notability for the organization. (Especially there is no evidence of any notable achievements or longevity per WP:CORP).--Kylohk 01:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 90% of this article is original research and synthesis of primary documents in some cases with dodgy weasel words and POV language. They have some mentions in the media but no real notability as demonstrated by depth of coverage in independent sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge any good content with the relevant Wikipedia history article and redirect. This organization is notable only because Wikipedia is notable, and it has received no significant sole coverage outside its association with Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited. VanTucky ^(talk) 05:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I see no evidence of notability via a google search (not the best method, but meh...). By the way, nominator: WP:JIMBOSAID - Jimbo said we shouldn't be quoting what he said in arguments ;) Giggy _U^CP 08:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know. I actually decided to nominate it before I read that, and just figured a second opinion couldn't hurt. --Maxamegalon2000 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Dhartung in particular. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, primarily on notability and BLP grounds. The largely redundant Greg Lloyd Smith article should probably go as well. --CBD 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant delete: once the OR is removed, there would not be much left, and notability is a bit iffy too. Shame though - it's the first article I've seen whose claim to notability is that it is notable for being non-notable. EyeSerene^TALK 19:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The original controversy was notable. Yes, some of the detail should be cut & the wording tightened. The fact that this seems to have been a fake charity makes it notable, and there seem to be sufficient sources. But I would reorient the article around the parent company , BAOU, Inc. Agreed, this is borderline. I do not know how others interpret it, but I interpret NPOV and COI as it applies to articles about things related to wikipedia, to mean that if in doubt, or when a subject is of borderline notability, we include articles on those critical of us. Perhaps NPOV/COI are not the right words--a more general term is editorial honesty. DGG (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment DGG, you've hit on the head why this should be merged and redirected. As you said, it was the controversy that is notable. If it was the controversy that was notable, and not the organization in particular for any reason, it should be a part of a relevant history of Wikipedia article. VanTucky ^(talk) 23:17, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or Keep It is an integral part of Wikipedia history[1], so the information should be reserved for those that are interested about the past. We should preserve history, not delete and hide it! -- Talamus 18:17, 29 July 2007 (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.