Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TAME
Source: 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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
TAME
I'd like AfD to take a look at this. The topic of the article sounds alright when you read it. But when you Google it, you find baically nothing, and Google news finds absolutely nothing. It presumably exists/ed, but the article is a (sub-)stub without apparent potential for expansion. It would be virtually impossible to verify any future addition to the article based on what's on Google. On the other hand, I could just be looking in the wrong places. -Splashtalk 00:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, seems to be defunct, and not notable even when it existed. This article refers to TAME as "was" in a couple of places, and that "... the activities of the organisation fell into abeyance". – Ezeu 03:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is an Irish organization. This may account in part for its paucity of web hits. Nevertheless, I can't find information that it's active; I found one mention of it some newsletter, but that's from Spring 2000. They did have a newsletter called Media Edge, but can't get any info on that either. One Martin Kieran appears to have been involved. He's co-written a couple of books. But there is no mention of TAME in the brief bio here. If the organizaton was functioning you'd think that there would be. The only marker that the organization IS active is that an editor created this article. Why now, if it's been defunct for years? Herostratus 04:47, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Expand - The article is far too brief to be of use and needs to be expanded. The comment was made that the organization may be defunct and this would indeed account for fewer webhits. Deleting an entry because it refers to a dead organization is inappropriate, especially one that by its title would suggest it had at one time been of some significance in its area. If we delete it because it is (effectively) dead, then we need to also consider deleting entries for the Whig party, Greek Mythology, etc.--eleuthero 18:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- They are verifiable and expandable. How would you suggest expanding this article? I'd be pleased if you can, but it's too common for people to say "expand" on AfD and have no idea or intention how that might be done. That said, if people can find a means of expanding and verifying this, that's great. I dont see any justification for your claim that its title suggests that it may have been of significance: that is just speculation. -Splashtalk 18:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleuthero, you are missreading the comments. No one is suggesting that this article be deleted merely because the organisation is defunct. Some effort has been made (with references and all) to determine if this indeed is/was a notable organisation. The "delete" votes (wouldnt you agree) are warranted – unless you can give some evidence to the contrary. / Ezeu 23:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Eleuthero is wholly ignoring the requirement that everything in Wikipedia be verifiable. If the article cited sources, as its creator was asked to do when xe created the article, it would be verifiable. But, like so many articles, it cites no sources at all. Like other editors above, I've tried to find reliable sources. I haven't found any. I cannot even find a source to verify the second half of the first sentence of the article, where it describes what the purpose of this organization purportedly is. The only verifiable information about this organization is that some people say that they used to be members of it but that it doesn't exist now. There is nothing else documented about this organization that I have found. (In contrast, there are reams of published books about the Whig party and about Greek mythology.) Eleuthero, the only argument that you can make to counter this, and to change everyone else's mind (This is a discussion. Opinions are not set in stone.), is to demonstrate the existence of reliable sources that cover this subject. Arguing that we should keep stuff that we cannot verify, regardless, simply won't wash. Delete. Uncle G 17:05, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Week keep per Kleuthero. Stifle 21:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep assuming this is an actual orginzation :), a stub is in order, for future expansion
- Delete, per Uncle G and my original nomination concerns. Those who are arguing we should keep it in case it may be verifiable need to go and read WP:V. This requires us to remove any unverified to the talk page until it is verified. In this case, all but the first few words would have to go. Eleuthero has no grounds to suppose they may have been significant: that is speculation pure and simple. His/her comments about Greek mythology are complete redherrings. -Splashtalk 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, lack of sources.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Velvetsmog (talk • contribs) 02:47, 5 December 2005
- Delete - as per above - Hahnchen 05:31, 7 December 2005 (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.