Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeathStation 9000


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 07:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

DeathStation 9000

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Unreferenced and non notable usenet joke term. Ref 1 is not about the DS9K, Ref 2 is just a joke site MickMacNee (talk) 17:56, 10 October 2008 (UTC) 
 * Delete Gets just 75 Google hits, which is awfully weak for something originating online. Nothing that looks even remotely like a reliable source, either. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:29, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:26, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Starblind. Mvjs  Talking  00:41, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep gets 648 hits is you use google to search usenet, which is where it originated, and is still in frequent current use . Mission Fleg (talk) 02:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep per Mission Fleg. Usenet is, by its nature, less searchable and referenceable than many other sources and this is definitely worth keeping. Stifle (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment, hmmm, a programmer joke from USENET.... Is this term older than August 1998? I see 1,280 hits on Google (Groups). 774 of those are the quote "I ran it on my DeathStation 9000 and demons flew out of my nose" in a sig. Perhaps the "DeathStation 9000" is well-known among readers of comp.lang.c, but most editors seem to subscribe to the idea that USENET is not a reliable source. Some say Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Is it for terms made up on USENET a decade ago? --Pixelface (talk) 08:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * From Usenet, I only found FWAK which comes anywhere near in terms of unreferenced usenet jokiness. Not even enough material to justify a List of Usenet humour MickMacNee (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Could be summed up in two sentences, and thus not worth an article. IRK! Leave me a note or two 01:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything that can be sourced only to Usenet is not notable, I'm sure. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * strong delete- basic google hits make no odds. Anyone can write anything on usenet and on the internets.  No reliable sources exist at all, no mentions in newspapers, books  or in academic papers, of course.:) Sticky Parkin 02:30, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete- the otters speak wisely. This concept is mildly amusing but, in the end, just something made up one day. Reyk  YO!  02:59, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment interesting, i didnt realise usenet was viewed so poorly. before there was a wikipedia or even a www thoughtful people such as yourselves :) used to hang out there. indeed wikipedia is absolutely dripping with usenet/unix/c/hacker culture.  but anyway i digress, i only wish to address the idea that DS9K is only a joke term, sure theres some humour there but it addresses a real issue, which is that newbie c programmers are often completely thrown by the idea that there is something undefined within the language (the infamous 'i = i++;' statement ) it just doesnt fit their (newbie) worldview, they're used to the idea that they have complete control of the operating system and the language.  so to get across the idea that sometimes they dont, they really really dont, takes a little exaggeration.  finally, as to 'Anyone can write anything on usenet', sure, anyone can write anything here too, it gets corrected tho, and its the same with groups such as comp.lang.c.  cheers Mission Fleg (talk) 04:02, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * We aready have an article on Undefined behavior, so this argument is only realy a case for retaining the term as a protected (i.e. not expandable into an article) redirect to act as a search term. MickMacNee (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, maybe wikipedia does have elements of usenet because people can technically write anything, however, that's why we don't use wikis or wikipedia itself as a reliable source to reference articles. Sticky Parkin 15:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep DS9K gets 2320 hits on google  Too Old (talk) 05:17, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Most of the hits on google are from bloggers or false positives. Usenet is not a reliable source, so I don't see DS9K meeting notability. Malinaccier (talk) 02:24, 19 October 2008 (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.