Talk:South African wireless community networks

This article was nominated for deletion on 9 December 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Telecommunications

	Telecommunication portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Telecommunications, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Telecommunications on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TelecommunicationsWikipedia:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTemplate:WikiProject TelecommunicationsTelecommunications articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

please give us some time to populate this article, not possible to type at 200000 words per minute

Please read WP:N for our notability requirements here on WP. Your article must assert the importance of the subject by providing significant coverage that is not trivial by 3rd party reliable sources that are independent from the subject.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 12:00, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it seems that only the wireless users groups from south africa are targeted for deletion and notability issues...because their articles are not good enough for wikipedia although they do not differ from the articles of community networks in other countries - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wireless_network_organizations its really ironic that the wugs are built on the SAME principle as wikipedia - openness, collaboration - but for some reason it is not acceptable.

Comments On Speedy Deletion Request[edit]

Keep. The speedy deletion notice was appropriate when added, since the article was just a stub. But since then the author has expanded it with sufficient material and references to establish notability. As an aside, the author of a new article should be given a few days to flesh it out before anyone adds a speedy deletion notice. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not an AfD, secondly, you're completely wrong about the references used. Not a single one of them meets the policy in regards to WP:N and WP:RELIABLE in that( see my explanation below of each source):

http://www.wug.za.net South Africa Wireless User Groups
http://www.mydrive.co.za/details.php?file=30 - Jawug Wifi presentation by Roelf Diedericks
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/1516.html - JAWUG asks for license exemption
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Wireless/4183.html - Free networks gain ground, MyADSL, South African Technology News website
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/Telecoms/6180.html - Free networks grow, MyADSL, South African Technology News website
http://daffy.za.net/too-far-north/2008/08/jawug-the-extended-version.html - Jawug promo video
http://forums.prophecy.co.za/f4/wireless-johannesburg-hopefully-pta-soon-2656/

For the first, it's a south-african wireless group. Seeing as how the article subject it about a wireless group, this reference is not independent from the subject.

For the second source, again, not independent, and also, it's by the company which is the subject of this article. For the third, fourth, and fifth sources, it's a agency that deals specifically in telecom services. That is not independent from the source. The sixth source is a promo video, I shouldn't have to say anymore on that one. Finally, the seventh source fails to even meet WP:SOURCE, in that it is a forum.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 01:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion[edit]

If there are not sources as described by WP:N to establish notability, within a week, then I shall take this article to AfD.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:40, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Anyway?[edit]

As the editor who expanded it, I obviously think the subject is worthy of an entry. But it centers on descriptions of the local city groups, and they really do not have solid independent references. I have indicated that by stating that the descriptions rely on the groups' own web pages, but that may not be enough. If these descriptions were taken out, that would vandalize the article. Perhaps an open RfD discussion would help to resolve the issue. Aymatth2 (talk) 20:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean AfD, RfD is for redirects. Back to the main subject, it's only been three days since I said I would AfD it if sufficient sources were not provided, so I would say there are still four more days to find sufficient sources. If this group is truly notable(ie, meets WP:N), then if it still does not have any sources(right now it has about one), then we can take it to AfD.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 20:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note - This comment was removed by User:ChildofMidnight as can be seen here, which is disruptive, since this comment is aimed at improving the article, or improving wikipdia. COM, do not do that again.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked around at the articles on Wikipedia? If someone wants to AfD this good luck to them. It's a notable subject. And it's a great article. Don't sweat it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:33, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this was a notable subject, it would meet WP:N. But guess what, it doesn't. There are three days left until a time of a week is up, and at the current moment, it does not meet WP:N. If this article was notable, you would be able to find plenty of sources as described by WP:N.

And by the way, do not delete my comment again, such is considered vandalism, especially since the comment is not deviating from the topic.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 04:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]