Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FidoNews


 * 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   merge to FidoNet. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 01:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

FidoNews

 * – (View AfD (View log  •  AfD statistics)

Unsourced stub describing a "self-published newsletter". In fact, this is a moderated email list. No indication whatsoever that this is notable; the only current content of the stub is simply that this email list exists. In the absence of sources, it does not seem likely that this will ever grow into even a normal-sized stub, let alone a real article. Stub was redirected to the "publisher" (FidoNet, although that does not seem to be very notable either), but this is being contested. In the absence of any sources showing any notability, my vote is to delete this. Crusio (talk) 21:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  -- Crusio (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete, per nom. Nothing to indicate notability. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
 * FidoNet easily passes the notability criteria, being the first, largest, and longest-running BBS network, and having received extensive treatment in a recent documentary film and in various books, academic journals, technical papers, doctoral theses, etc. The question as to whether its official publication, FidoNews, is likewise notable is certainly debatable, though.  Some observations, then:
 * The fact that it is "self-published" is not in and of itself a reason to dismiss it, as many other notable periodicals, online and in print, could be likewise described.
 * The publication's longevity should be taken into consideration; it's been published continuously since 1984.
 * The term gets about 12000 Google hits, though one would expect a paucity of online sources, given that FidoNews's heyday predates the World Wide Web.
 * Based on these observations alone, and its association with its obviously notable parent organizations, I would guess that FidoNews is at least as notable, if not more, than the various Usenet newsgroups, IETF series, and other online magazines for which we already have articles. It would be helpful, though, if this notability could be confirmed by finding references to FidoNews in established online or print sources.  I'm not aware of any off the top of my head, but I suspect these books and articles might be some good places to look, as they are about FidoNet:
 * Bush, R. 1993. FidoNet: technology, tools, and history. Communications of the ACM Special issue on internetworking, Vol. 36, No. 8, August 1993, pp. 31–35.
 * Quarterman, J. S., Mitchell, S. C., and Smoot, C. (1993) The Internet Connection: System Connectivity and Configuration. 1st Ed. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
 * Crosser, E. G. 1998. Ifmail: FidoNet technology implementation on UNIX platform. In Proceedings of the Annual Conference on USENIX Annual Technical Conference (New Orleans, Louisiana, June 15 - 19, 1998). USENIX Annual Technical Conference. USENIX Association, Berkeley, CA, p. 37.
 * Surratt, C. G. (1996). The sociology of everyday life in computer-mediated communities Dissertation Abstracts International, 57(03-A), 1346.
 * Another potential source of citations might be the current editor of FidoNews, Björn Felten. He may be aware of coverage of FidoNews in other media. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 06:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to FidoNet, as it is not notable enough to have his own article. Armbrust (talk) 12:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Comment The sources provided by Psychonaut may (perhaps) establish notability for FidoNet, but unless other evidence turns up, they don't establish notability for FidoNews. --Crusio (talk) 11:05, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to FidoNet; create a stand-alone article later if new sources with non-trivial coverage are found. — Miym (talk) 23:32, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to fidonet though Fido was a bunch of whiners, they are notable. this is not. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * 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.