Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.adoption

Add links
From 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 was delete per lack of reliable sources and the fact that the principal author had a history of self-promotion. Blueboy96 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.adoption[edit]

Alt.adoption (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Newsgroups fall under the realm of web content. There is no clear assertion of notability made in the article. There are no reliable sources cited in the article. The article alleges that the group was mentioned in a Rolling Stone article, which would not meet the significant coverage hurdle. Fallenfromthesky (talk) 03:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete. There is nothing in the article currently which is a clear assertion of notability. Even the comment about the Rolling Stone article says it's only mentioned in the article—i.e., it didn't get significant coverage. —C.Fred (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a notable newsgroup in Usenet culture although I remember it being quite busy at times. If it played any notable role in adoption culture that would have to be sourced. --Dhartung | Talk 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, we only have artiles on the most notable newsgroups. Editorofthewikireview my edits here! 10:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Usenet newsgroups are neither encyclopedic nor particularly notable with only a few exceptions. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KleenupKrew. In this case, the article doesn't even assert notability, and probably could have been speedied. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 19:05, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's plenty of coverage in reliable sources found by Google Books, Scholar and News searches. I'd like to be able to say that I'm surprised that none of the contributors above spotted that, but actually I'm not, because it seems to be quite a regular thing to get these unresearched pile-on delete comments at AfD. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have yet to see any non-trivial coverage of it. (You can find tons of G-hits for many alt.* groups; that doesn't make them notable). OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes, you can find tons of hits from a Google Web search for just about anything, which is why I didn't use that in my argument. The searches I linked to found 38 books, 18 schloarly articles and 12 news items. I doubt very much that you would find that much for many alt.* groups. Phil Bridger (talk) 07:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree there may just be enough sources there, but notability is still marginal, and the current article is hardly worth saving. --Dhartung | Talk 19:39, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but check out what those Google hits actually are, just stuff like (from a book on computer security) "This category includes things ranging from alt.hacking to alt .adoption". Others are just lists of nearly every newsgroup. Trivial mentions don't work when actually trying to source an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP is not a directory. --Anna Lincoln (talk) 15:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep by the plethoria of sources pointed at by Phil, which are certainly indepent, reliable sources, which seem to provide significant coverage in many cases. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:02, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • After reviewing the sources, I still find that there certainly is coverage in independent reliable sources, but that the coverage is not all that significant. The amount of coverage, even if brief, in books and papers, still makes me believe this is notable enough for inclusion. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep almost full keep per Phil and Martjin. There appear to be enough coverage that is passes the bar. However, none of the sources seem to really focus on alt.adoption which gives me some concern. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --I created it because it has been a widely recognized and salient contritution to the field which spured a great deal of social interest, countless media reports and changes in laws. There are numerous alt.groups listed. I see no reason for the omission. I will be happy to add some of the needed changes. [Timothy Sheridan] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Sheridan (talk • contribs) 20:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this user has now been banned permanently for consistent disregard for WP:COI, and will not be adding any of the needed changes to his article. --McGeddon (talk) 22:23, 9 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alt.adoption&oldid=1087639691"