Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks (2nd nomination)

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 05:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usenet.kooks [edit]

Article does not assert notablity per WP:WEB and things like criticism aren't sourced. In 2005 another afd voted keep many asking for clean up. Arbusto 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see what has changed since then. I'm not sure cleanup is actually warranted, but last I heard simply being in cleanup wasn't enough. -- Gwern (contribs) 01:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How does it pass WP:WEB? It reads: 1) The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. 2) The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation. 3) The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Arbusto 01:22, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this newsgroup is very notable on the Internet. Admittedly it probably doesn't pass WP:WEB, but it's still notable and ought to be in an internet encyclopedia. - Richardcavell 02:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep only if cleaned up before close of discussion, otherwise delete. I don't think WP:WEB applies here, as Usenet exists outside of (and greatly predates) the World Wide Web. And there's no question that alt.usenet.kooks meets notability based purely on its role in Internet history. However, I'm not a big fan of articles that are given almost a year to get cleaned up but then never are. If nobody's willing to bring it up to spec, it should be deleted. --Aaron 02:17, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "needs to be cleaned up" is not a criterion for deletion. There are plenty of articles in far worse shape, many of which have been in worse shape for longer periods of time. There isn't a deadline at which all of Wikipedia's content gets shipped off to the printers, after all, what's the harm in taking our time? Bryan 06:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apparently "taking our time" is quite similar to "never gets done" Bwithh 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Past a certain point, the fact that a cleanup tag goes unheeded is itself inherent evidence that perhaps the subject isn't as Wikiworthy as we'd like to believe. In such a case, it may be preferable to simply delete the article without prejudice, so that someone else may come along later and produce a better article from scratch. And if nobody ever does, well ... --Aaron 16:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A newsgroup is not a web site, so WP:WEB may not be easily applicable. And in any event this particular newsgroup happens to be one of the more significant bits of Usenet culture. Bryan 06:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per consensus in previous AfD, I don't see how it has changes since. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and hopefully a cleanup after one long year. Notable in the internet world and deserves an article on Wikipedia. --Ter e nce Ong _{(T | C)} 13:42, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for cleanup. Gamaliel 13:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Provide proper references and cleanup before the end of afd or else, delete as per Aaron. After 10 months or so since last afd - no claims to notability, no verifiable reliable sources, failure of WP:WEB. Apparently we're just going on the hearsay of people. This is VERY bad precedent for other articles. We've already made a huge exception for this article. I don't see why we should have infinite patience for it, especially if "we'll take our time over cleanup/it'll get cleaned up eventually" actually means nothing gets done about critical issues. Bwithh 16:12, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Google suggests the subject is notable and there should be enough out there to verify all these claims that someone apparently just rattled off from memory. --Hyperbole 16:32, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Zero hits on Google Scholar and Google Books btw. This is hardly The WELL. Bwithh 19:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Even The WELL would probably only have a 50-50 chance of survival if anyone cleaned out the Wikipedia:Walled garden hagiographical parts of it and put it up for AfD. --Aaron 20:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, nonsense. The WELL was an important virtual community (not so much today), and has had entire books devoted to it. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - "Not so much today" is kind of my point. If there had been a Wikipedia in 1992 and someone nominated The WELL, it would have been closed as a blatantly bad-faith nomination within about 90 seconds. But in 2006? It's more like "Oh yeah, the WELL. I remember them; they're still around? Wow..." If someone quietly slapped a {{prod}} tag on it, there's an off chance it might get deleted before anyone else that cared even noticed. As for the books, they were all written by longstanding WELL members, so someone could argue they're just part of the self-referential walled garden, and time has passed and the WELL hasn't kept up, etc. (I'm just speaking of it as a potential WP:CCC example; I have no intention of putting it up for AfD.) --Aaron 02:59, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not-notable. If this was really such an important part of internet history (whatever that is) surely some reliable source would have written about it? Recury 18:00, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I struggle to discern anything in the article which even begins to suggest notability - a place where 'kooky' usenet posts are discussed? Let's see some sources. --Nydas 18:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Aaron and Bwithh. Valrith 19:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' AUK is one of the groups that most of Usenet knows, due to the *ahem* strong personalities that get brought to it. (and I haven't even gotten started on the Kooks!) I'll take a look and see if I can update it. SirFozzie 19:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely an important part of Net Culture. Whether "Net Culture" itself is all that important is a separate issue, but if it's covered, this belongs. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:WEB (even if it's not entirely on the web). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly notable, clean enough for me. Not sure what the beef is. Georgewilliamherbert 01:12, 7 October 2006 (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.