Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.music.phish

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. PhilKnight (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rec.music.phish

Non-notable. No inline cites. No reliability. Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Tenacious D Fan (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly nn Mayalld (talk) 13:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would submit that USENET newsgroups are inherently non-notable. DarkAudit (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think that Usenet newsgroups are inherently non-notable, but they should have to establish notability on the same principles as web content per WP:WEB. This article doesn't do so. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. We have over 30 articles on Usenet newsgroups now, see Category:Newsgroups. Some like Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated are clearly warranted, some like Talk.bizarre probably are on subcultural grounds. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply 30 out over 100,000. And many of those are stubs reading x is a USENET newsgroup for the discussion of y. No real assertions of notability or any third party sources. DarkAudit (talk) 23:59, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Additional Using WP:WEB in the absence of established standards for USENET groups, this article does not pass muster. Most of the references are the group itself, which does not pass WP:RS as not independent of the subject. Google Groups is merely Google's USENET feed in web form. USENET groups are the predecessors to today's web forums, and by and large those sites do not pass WP:WEB. There's nothing here to show that this group is any more notable than your average web forum, longevity notwithstanding. DarkAudit (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:N. I'm OK with it being merged into Phish. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Metropolitan90 expresses my sentiment perfectly. -Verdatum (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Phish - only claim to notability is from being an early newsgroup. Still that is not enough to pass WP:N --T-rex 00:03, 27 July 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.