Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks


 * 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 of the debate was keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 19:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Alt.usenet.kooks
Libel. Defamation. Nonsense. Identifying individuals by name and alleging irrationality without an exposition of the irrational ideas nor the logic used to claim irrationality. Content unbecoming a resource. From my web site: "when I created the recommendation for deletion, I did not sign my name to it. The next day my rationale for deletion was followed by a caption: "The preceding unsigned statement was contributed by Wyatt Ehrenfels [my IP address]." I deleted this caption, but on roughly half my visits to this page, I find the caption restored, so there's at least one person in my midst who feels my identity should be public knowledge. Fine. So let's reveal the identities of the individuals defaming the alleged kooks in the alt.usenet.kooks news group and, if we can't penetrate the identities of these anonymous sources, then as journalists, Wikipedia administrators should treat these individuals the same way journalists treat unnamed sources. Carefully. Confirm the rumors before releasing the article. If you have to release the article, withhold the identities of the alleged kooks. If you're going to reveal the identities of the alleged kooks, throw in a number of disclaimers. It's the absence of these disclaimers that undermines the neutrality of the article."


 * Comment Necessary context to read before getting involved: News Group-based Cult, Defamation League Hijacks Pop Trash "Encyclopedia" Wikipedia (en.Wikipedia.org) to Malign Victims. 86.140.183.56 03:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, it will get cleaned up over time. Those that remember Usenet will remember this newsgroup. Heck, I think I was listed on it once. Ifnord 04:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is a part of Usenet history. I'm just kind of sad it doesn't include more recent kooks, like Ed Conrad.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 10:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I seem to remember an earlier deletion debate on kooks. Result was that reporting on a Usenet group defaming people is okay as long as we don't do it ourselves. I could be wrong though. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- notable group: FAQ holds historical perspective of people who have been classed as net-kooks, in almost every case with sufficicent corroboration to justify the tab --SockpuppetSamuelson 12:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Very visible usenet group.  I don't see that the nominator's criticisms apply to the article, as long as the article makes it clear that it is a report on the newsgroup, not an endorsement of it. ManoaChild 12:19, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Do not keep. Remember the knock Wikipedia took in the press for the Seigenthaler incident. Just be fair. If you are going to identify individuals by name, at least have the journalistic integrity and objectivity to include a 3-4 sentence paragraph quoting the views of the individuals being summarily judged as irrational. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.129.121.254 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Keep; Clean it up as needed, through the normal process. Tom Harrison (talk) 14:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Neutrality problems are not addressed by AfD. I challenge you to find anything in that article that is not worded in a neutral, factual way, and discuss it on the talk page. What alt.usenet.kooks itself does you may well find objectionable, but the article in no way, shape or form claims that the "kook" label is appropriate to the individuals listed&mdash;of which, I'm fairly safe to claim, you are probably one. It is true, however, that the list of individuals should be restricted to notable instances (Archimedes Plutonium and Wollmann spring to mind), not just list any random recipient. JRM · Talk 17:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Seigenthaler article was worded in a neutral, factual way as well. But the civilized world cringed at Wikipedia upon learning of this piece. What you are doing is participating in slander. And that's exactly what it is (a) in the absence of your own names and (b) in the absence of the ideas (and/or equal-time statements) of the (c) individuals named in this entry. This strikes most civilized people as dirty. The statement from the preceding contributor "I'm fairly safe to claim, you are probably one" (i.e. a kook) is just additional evidence of a lack of value neutrality. Even if you are not an administrator or co-creator (i.e. just a passer-by putting his two cents in) it still speaks volumes as to how this entry is used and to whom it appeals. No one would be interested in creating or reading this entry if it were not a defamation delivery device. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.129.121.254 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * "The statement from the preceding contributor 'I'm fairly safe to claim, you are probably one' (i.e. a kook)". No. This again highlights the misconception. I implied you were probably mentioned in the article as having been labeled a kook by the newsgroup to baldly demand the article be deleted. This in turn was based on previous experience&mdash;unsurprisingly, the vocal critics of the article in the past have been those individuals named. Whether you are actually a kook is another matter&mdash;personally I'd vote "no", since you're much too calm and rational. I still apologize for the remark, since the implications are also clear.
 * "No one would be interested in creating or reading this entry if it were not a defamation delivery device." Now you are the one engaging in unsupported statements, even if they don't defame anyone's character. We have many articles on notable newsgroups. That alt.fan.warlord is less controversial than this one is obvious, but that doesn't mean the article on this newsgroup should not exist. By that reasoning we could well claim alt.religion.scientology should be removed for its negative statements on Scientologists and their religion. JRM · Talk 18:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. This article cannot be construed as libelous: it doesn't level accusations against anyone, merely reports on what a few old usenetters have said. In any case, AfD is not an appropriate venue for dealing with content issues. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 18:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By your logic, if I heard rumors that you were a pedophile, and then I decided to devote a Web site to reporting rumors that you are a pedophile, and it ends up ranking highly in a Google search on your name, all I have to avoid culpability is claim, "I am just reporting a rumor." This explanation would never fly in a court of law, where I would be perceived as a secondary publisher or re-publisher of content under the Communications Decency Act. By creating this entry and identifying individuals by name (and without observing guidelines of journalism and civil conduct) you are in effect creating a Web page (this entry has its own unique URL) that distributes malicious rumors that have no basis of fact beyond the fact of the rumor itself. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by 67.129.121.254 (talk &bull; contribs)
 * Do not keep unless the names of individuals and all links to the newsgroup and its supporting websites are permanently removed, and the article's bias in favor of the newsgroup's activities is remedied. &mdash;the preceding unsigned comment is by Seigoat (talk &bull; contribs) ; Note: Account was created after the start of this AfD.
 * There is no "keep if" or "delete unless" vote. The question before us here is: is this topic worthy of inclusion? The current or future state of this article is beyond the scope of this AfD. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 20:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia is not making any claims about the individuals named in this article, it is merely describing claims made by participants of the newsgroup the article is about. The newsgroup is itself worthy of an article, and that's all that AfD is supposed to be about. Bryan 00:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * By your logic, if I heard rumors that you were a pedophile, and then I decided to devote a Web site to reporting rumors that you are a pedophile, and it ends up ranking highly in a Google search on your name, all I have to avoid culpability is claim, "I am just reporting a rumor." This explanation would never fly in a court of law, where I would be perceived as a secondary publisher or re-publisher of content under the Communications Decency Act. By creating this entry and identifying individuals by name (and without observing guidelines of journalism and civil conduct) you are in effect creating a Web page (this entry has its own unique URL) that distributes malicious rumors that have no basis of fact beyond the fact of the rumor itself


 * Keep, doesn't fit any definition of libel I know about. Gazpacho 00:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Right, and even if it did, that would be beside the point. The point being whether this topic is encyclopedic or not. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 00:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as per Bryan. If I want to stretch an analogy realllly wide, I mean realllly wide, if the article truly had "libel, defamation and nonsense", that would be original research (hold on for a while, put that mallet down, will you?), but this thing is source of, um, such research. =) (There. now put the mallet away. Thank you.) Such stuff is part of the content of the group, but that's no reason not to have the article about such a long-standing Internet community that deals with such matter. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 04:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep as this article documents a notable and highly visible Usenet newsgroup. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 08:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. The purported justification for deletion amounts only to a claim that the article requires editing. Peter J Ross 11:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It's a genuine longstanding noteworthy Usenet phenomenon If the article requires editing, edit it. AnonMoos 19:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)


 * 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.