Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.sysadmin.recovery

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, while some sources were found by Ben Aveling during this discussion, they were either not reliable, or did not discuss the newsgroup as their subject and only offered trivial coverage of its content. The notability and verifiability concerns were therefore unresolved. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.sysadmin.recovery[edit]

Just another newsgroup, no mention of why it is important. Wongm (talk) 00:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are sources but none go beyond trivial mentions. I suppose standards of inclusion for websites apply to newsgroups too. --Rividian (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete this is a particularly well-known newsgroup, but I still see no evidence of WP:N per Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps a WP:NEWSGROUP is needed. JJL (talk) 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. An interesting newsgroup, but I don't think it meets the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Incidentally, WP:WEB ought to cover newsgroups based on its provision that "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered, for the purposes of this guideline, as web content." (Technically and historically, I believe some newsgroups were distributed other than by means of the Internet, but I don't know if that is the case anymore, and at any rate the non-Internet distribution of newsgroups is unlikely to be significant in contemporary times.) The most likely method by which a newsgroup could satisfy WP:WEB would be to meet criterion 1, "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." I will discuss this issue at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time when Usenet traveled via tape that was flown to some regions, but I thing that's long past. JJL (talk) 04:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unfortunately the scary devil monastery has received only trivial coverage. (Also note that WP:WEB already includes all internet-based content. WP:WEB is just the most common shortcut, and there is also WP:INTERNET.) --Dhartung | Talk 03:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not so much a currently active group, but an interesting piece of Internet (well, USENET, really) social history. References can and should be found--the article should be cleaned up, not deleted. Jclemens (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not just another news group. It meets WP:WEB#Criteria requirement 1 for notability, even though that isn't completely clear from the article. A google search shows how much influence the newsgroup has had. Most of the hits are talking about material covered in the newsgroup, not about the newsgroup itself, but that still counts under WEB (The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.) For a few examples that are perhaps amongst the more serious publications, see for eg [1] and some of [2] . That said, WEB also says: "Wikipedia articles should not exist only to describe the nature, appearance or services a website offers, but should describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." This needs to be done before the article can be described as good. But the newsgroup is notable. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 14:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have any chance of meeting WP:WEB. Wednesday Next (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteI dare say it made a few sysops feel notable but is just another alt.so-what. Plutonium27 (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Ben Aveling. Robert Brockway (talk) 03:36, 23 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.