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 --JForget 23:25, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team White Hot[edit]

Distributed computing may be noteworthy, but I don't see any indication that this "distributed computing team" is notable, or any sources showing notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, no claims of notability, non-notable group. Corvus cornix_talk 21:50, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it would be good to start wiki's on each different team in the distributed computing world. First off each team can show what contributions they have done to further better the world, i.e. Folding@Home helps to find out cures for Alzheimer's, Mad Cow, Huntington's, cancers and cancer-related syndromes. When you are doing a project that has such credibility as Folding@Home it would be nice for everyone to see what each team has done. On the surface it may not look like Team White Hot has done much, but below the surface they have helped advance science through donating unused process cycles and paying for the electricity needed to power the computers. Hawkeye2400 (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not even notable within its own tiny category, nor any sign that it's known outside that tiny category. As for their attempts to promote themselves, they can rent space on servers theirownselves and start their own wiki. --Calton | Talk 16:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the editor has been beavering away, creating an infobox and three different categories to prop up this odd notion of using Wikipedia to promote even more distributed-computing "teams". --Calton | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no signs of notability. Note that a member of the team has posted on their blog soliciting members to post on this AFD. -- Whpq (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The whole reason I am doing this is NOT to promote the team, if I wanted to do that honestly I would buy advertisements. The whole point is to try to get the other teams to join up and post pages in the biggest wiki available. Which would give you a detailed list of the teams that are participating. Quite honestly anyone can start a wiki, it just wont ever be found. Hawkeye2400 (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're not trying to promote the team, you're trying to hijack Wikipedia to promote a WHOLE BUNCH of "teams". And this is praiseworthy HOW, exactly? --Calton | Talk 16:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is exactly why this is needed NOT TO PROMOTE TEAMS! TO LEARN ABOUT THE TEAMS! This is exactly the same as a baseball team, we post stats, we have a background, we have players (members)! This is PRAISEWORTHY because of what we contribute to! We do more then the sports figures! We are doing this to better the world by helping find out how proteins fold and trying to cure cancer! THIS IS MORE PRAISEWORTHY THEN A BASEBALL PLAYER HITTING A BALL! Hawkeye2400 (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NOT TO PROMOTE TEAMS! TO LEARN ABOUT THE TEAMS! - Given that you're unknown except possibly within your in-group -- and even that in-group notice is not clear -- distinctions without differences: Wikipedia is here to document notability/real-world impact, not promote it, and given that you specifically said you want your "teams" to post to "the biggest wiki available" because otherwise "it just wont ever be found", promotion is EXACTLY what you're after. --Calton | Talk 00:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete - I agree with what Corvus cornix_talk said "no claims of notability, non-notable group." it sums it all up. Ctempleton3 (talk) 22:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. These teams do a good job but this one is hardly notable. "Ranking 501 out of 112315 teams" is not an assertion of notability. It is even questionable whether "Ranking 1 out of 112315 teams" would be notable. --Bduke (talk) 00:43, 26 March 2008 (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.