Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News.admin.net-abuse.email


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:04, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

News.admin.net-abuse.email

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

Non-notable newsgroup, no non-trivial sources, no notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 02:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Disagree strongly on notability; for some years this newsgroup was one of the very few places on the net where system administrators could coordinate their efforts to combat spam.  Agreed that the article needs more and better sources, however; I will see what I can do to improve them. Tim Pierce (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with Tim Pierce. Article could perhaps use some trimming of silliness, but has genuine merit. DS (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd like to keep it. However there are no reliable sources cited. We just have to take the article's word that what it says is true. Obviously critical views can not be included without a reliable source. So without secondary sources WP article really has no purpose.  A person could go directly to the group and get the information first hand.Steve Dufour (talk) 05:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sorry, but it is just not true that the article has no reliable sources. It certainly needs more citations, but it does have some. Tim Pierce (talk) 15:20, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep I see that the book has been changed from an additional reading item to a reference, the others seem to be personal websites. I guess that's enough, go ahead and keep it. I still stand by my general comments on the usefulness of WP articles on websites and newsgroups. They are not very useful unless they include some in-depth discussion from secondary sources.  If a person knows about the site or group already what's the point of coming to WP to find out what he (or she) already knows?  If the person doesn't know about the group how would he ever happen to stumble across the WP article? Steve Dufour (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Wikipedia is full of articles such as this one. A must-have but seriously change the article's name. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  07:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a "Newsgroup". What other title could it have? :) --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. By its nature, sources for usenet are harder to find, but this is one of the most well-known and notable newsgroups. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I agree with Stifle that sources for newsgroups are hard to find. I think what we need is a separate guideline page for "newsgroup" notability as there are thousands of newsgroups but only a very few of them have articles or should have articles. If I were to !vote I would say "weak keep" because I was a regular participant back in the late 90s. I'm the "Ron Ritzman" mentioned in the article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep articles on topics like this are a specialty of Wikipedia . I'd even say that to a certain extent we can relax the usual sourcing guidelines for them. It's a justified exception and a good place to use IAR. DGG (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I also voted to keep. But let's be real and admit that the main purpose of this article is to satisfy the vanity and feelings of self-importance of the people active in the group. Very few people will come to WP who don't know about it and are seeking information. :-)  Steve Dufour (talk) 15:34, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ouch! [[Image:Emoticon frown.svg|15px]] Though I think the last time I posted there was 2003. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing personal Ron. I'm sure you are doing great work. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 00:55, 23 May 2009 (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.