Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.binaries.slack

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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:03, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.binaries.slack

Non-notable newsgroup, no sources found, no notability asserted. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Newsgroup holds no major role in the Internet history books. There are thousands of newsgroups and this one isn't one of the notable few. Computerjoe 's talk 19:55, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Plenty of references are available but it appears the nom did not check before nominating the article at AfD. The article already contained a citation link to a Wired magazine article but I guess it too was overlooked? I've added it and two other references that were easily found via Google to the article but there are many more that could be worked in. The Wired reference is quite reliable and the writer of that column is well known.
- Frauenfelder, Mark (1997-03-25). "S.P.(U.T.U.)M. Shames Spammer into a Rage". Wired magazine. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved 2009-05-22.

--Tothwolf (talk) 03:22, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are many thousands of sites where "stuff happens". The above-mentioned reference gives no hint as to why the subject is notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:04, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure how you could possibly come to that "conclusion" given the Wired magazine reference.

This is not an article about a "site".
The nominator stated: "no sources found, no notability asserted", neither of these were accurate or valid; the Wired magazine reference already being present in the article when he nominated it.
This acticle was originally created as a stub on 16 September 2002 and is one of the older articles on Wikipedia. If notability had ever been in question, it would have been deleted or dealt with long ago.
This is a clear case of I don't know anything about it, therefore it does not exist.

--Tothwolf (talk) 09:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is asserted. Refs are given. The Wiki is not paper so we have the ability to have more esoterica. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 11:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another Wired magazine reference (to go along with the other books and references now included in the article):
- Frauenfelder, Mark (1997-04-02). "Not in My Newsgroup!". Wired magazine. Condé Nast Publications. Retrieved 2009-05-23.

--Tothwolf (talk) 14:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Decently sourced now, and mostly harmless. HiDrNick! 14:04, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wired magazine and other sources confirm it is notable. Dream Focus 19:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Tothwolf has done an admirable job providing examples of the "notability" of this article, but I personally still think the strongest point in his favor is the way TenPoundHammer off-handedly decided to toss off an RfD for an article that's been uncontested at Wikipedia for seven years. Has the standard for "notablity" become that much more strict in the days since the article was written? --Modemac (talk) 20:19, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems many editors today were simply not around during Usenet's heyday since it predates the web by 10 years (Usenet came about in 1979 and the Web in 1989).
  Unfortunately over the last 7 years it has become incredibly easy to nominate articles for AfD (partly due to guideline changes and a number of JavaScript tools), and there are many "editors" who prefer spend the majority of their time nominating things for XfD instead of improving them since improving them takes much more time. A glance through Category:All articles proposed for deletion is quite telling.
  This particular AfD appears to have been part of a test batch of Usenet nominations, which also included News.admin.net-abuse.email and Alt.atheism. From what I've seen, this is a common technique to "test the waters" before mass nominating larger numbers of articles such as those in Category:Newsgroups.
  --Tothwolf (talk) 21:31, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —Tothwolf (talk) 22:08, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after the nice sourcing job. I wonder how many usenet groups are notable per our standards? Them From Space 14:40, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment My guess, maybe 200-500 out the 100,000+ that exist. Tothwolf (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another TPH special. Nice work on the sourcing. Is it starting to WP:SNOW in here? Fences and windows (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It is well-sourced, a highly revered website in the annals of the church, and oft mentioned along the radio show Hour of Slack by its most famous reverend Ivan Stang.--DrWho42 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2009 (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.