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.
Delete. It has no context and fails WP:OBVIOUS. Normally this could be remedied but here the topic doesn't appear in any way encyclopaedic and there is nothing to work with. In fact the nominator is being generous: the article is probably liable for WP:SPEEDY as A1: "no context". --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Delete Wp:notability is not defined by the existence of an article on Wikipedia or the content of any such article. This article has no notability problems, because no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists. This article can be deleted because it fails WP:V, as per our WP:Deletion policy. The real problem here, IMO, is with the WMF, when this article should not have been allowed in mainspace. Unscintillating (talk) 15:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't for anyone here to provide evidence that the aticle fails notability. Rather, it is the job of the article's editors to make the case for notability, which clearly hasn't been done, and from my searching would be difficult; WP:V is neither here nor there. George Ponderevo (talk) 15:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may of course choose to support the article's deletion on the grounds of notability, but I'm supporting its deletion on the grounds of original research. I really don't understand why you're arguing the toss with me, as we're both in favour of deletion. George Ponderevo (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"no one has provided any evidence that the topic fails notability, and we assume good faith that such exists" - No, I'm sorry, Wikipedia does not work that way. If you honestly think it does then I strongly suggest you re-read WP:N and WP:NOR - and also read WP:ONUS. - The BushrangerOne ping only21:52, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reason requires evidence, otherwise it is opinion. If I have mis-stated a policy or guideline, then please identify the text, this will in turn allow a reasoned discussion to follow. Thank you, Unscintillating (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the Wikilinks previously cited, WP:N, WP:NOR, and WP:ONUS (better known as WP:BURDEN), are all part of the content policies. The lede of WP:N states, "notability guidelines only outline how suitable a topic is for its own article or list. They do not limit the content of an article". There is more at WP:NNC, "The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content". This is also a handy place to find Category:Wikipedia_content_policies. There is more at WP:NRVE, "The absence of citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that the subject is not notable." Hope this helps. Unscintillating (talk) 23:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If independent reliable sources that discuss the subject of the article cannot be produced, and in this case they haven't been and likely can't be, then the subject by definition fails the notability test. Your "good faith" assumption that such sources must exist, just that nobody's yet managed to find them, while it may earn you brownie points at the Gates of Heaven, doesn't here on terra firma. But as I've already said, notability isn't really the issue here; the article in its curent state is simply an essay, completely unsuitable for a serious encyclopedia. George Ponderevo (talk) 23:45, 30 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N guideline says that an absence of citations does not indicate non-notability. Therefore, there is no failure of the notability test. This is also known by the phrase, "an absence of evidence is not evidence of absence". Saying that sources "must" exist is not what I said, I said that in the absence of evidence, we assume as per good faith that they exist. An absence of evidence no more tells us that sources exist, than it tells us that they don't exist. Also, I agree with the previous comment, "notability isn't really the issue here". Unscintillating (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But I wasn't referring to an absence of citations, I was referring to an absence of independent reliable sources that address this topic. In any event, as we seem to be broadly in agreement there's seems little point in prolonging this discussion. George Ponderevo (talk)
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.