Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.woodworking

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 as failing WP:WEB. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.woodworking

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article does not meet notability guidelines. All of the sources are primary, written by members of the group. It's been tagged for cleanup for some time, with no effort by interested parties to bring it up to standards with verifiable, secondary sources. Vertigo Acid (talk) 20:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources demonstrate the notability of this venerable newsgroup. Simply click on the news and books links above. Articles shouldn't be deleted if they can be improved. Pburka (talk) 00:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are only 33 news article spanned over 15 years in the link you mentioned! Even without an analysis of whether the stories are substantial and non-trivial the number is remarkably small. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The notability of this newsgroup per WP:WEB is not clear to me. Most of the news hits require payment to view, and many of the books hits are basically listings of this newsgroup in Usenet directories. However, it may be possible for someone to establish this newsgroup's notability; if a better case is made, I may reconsider my recommendation. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Their FAQ (archive) has been recommended in this book. When a Usenet forum produces a FAQ that ends up being considered reliable by print sources, it should probably have an article here. Also covered at some length here so it meets the letter of WP:GNG as well. Pcap ping 07:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is a book that is essentially a long list of recommended URLs any better than an online source of recommended information? Because someone paid more to have it published than they would to put a webpage online? Regarding the second book... so because Doug Stowe happens to participate in this newsgroup, it becomes notable? I realize notability is not a core WP principle like verifiability. Those sources are great for verifying, but not for establishing notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-notabiltiy does not mean that some Wikipedian thinks a topic is important. Conversely, a topic judged as unimportant by some Wikipedian does not become non-notable. See WP:IDONTKNOWIT and WP:JNN. This is a woodworking newsgroup, so if reliable sources about woodworking think it's notable enough to give it some coverage, then so should we. There's more coverage that what I've linked above, e.g. [1] [2] [3], etc. (For the same type of reasoning, the forum you probably know about, HardOCP, is wiki-notable because it has similar coverage in the computer press [4] [5], etc.) Pcap ping 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the only notability of HardOCP were trivial coverage in books about it being a good hardware website, I'd be calling for an AfD of it as well, regardless of my personal involvement. The sources provided thus far only verify that Rec.woodworking exists, which is not in question. What is the significance of Rec.woodworking? Thus far, they all clearly fall under WP:WEB criteria 1b - Trivial coverage, and do not establish notability. Vertigo Acid (talk) 01:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "rec.woodworking" News archives search shows a bunch of newspaper references, peaking in 1998. The Greensboro News and Record, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, and Dayton Daily News all wrote stories about it. Looks notable enough to me based on that; if the article needs to be improved, that's a WP:BETTER argument and not a reason to delete. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 01:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The newspaper articles cited above (which I've checked using LexisNexis) are by a single syndicated columnist, Jack Warner, and are mostly along the lines of "Someone on rec.woodworking asked about [woodworking topic]. Here's a column on [woodworking topic]." I thought Warner's 1998 article on "Woodworking and the Internet" might help here, but it turns out to be just instructions on how to read newsgroups. I can't find any news coverage of the group as an object of interest in itself. EALacey (talk) 13:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the notability criteria of WP:WEB, which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable. In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself..." the policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial". Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works". If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators. Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria. This website does not pass any of the three notability limbs of WP:WEB. Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2010 (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.