Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/News.admin.net-abuse.email (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   no consensus. The "keep" side was rather weak, but sources were indeed provided. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 00:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

News.admin.net-abuse.email
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

No reliable secondary sources found. Last AFD was laden with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes and nothing else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete I was originally going to say to merge to one of our articles on email spam, but looking at the content there's really nothing encyclopedic to merge, the vast bulk of it consists of a list of topics (all of which are obvious aside from the presumably joking inclusion of cats) and a list of "NANAEisms" all of which are either covered elsewhere already or trivial inside jokes. Since this has been around since 2002 and yet still contains not even a scrap of verifiable encyclopedic content, we can only conclude that this is because no such content exists. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  15:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous AfD. The article should be fixed, not deleted. This newsgroup was quite influential in the late 1990s and early 2000 and should be considered notable because of its history. Some of the inside jargon made it into the mainstream as evidenced by the references in the linked articles. Direct mainstream media references still findable today include:   – McDutchie (talk) 22:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * 'Keep as per previous AfD. This article should be updated, not deleted.  This newsgroup is still in action, cutting down on the amount of spam everyone sees.  Though so much more is generated every day, it's hard to keep up.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.211.131.194 (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * ILIKEIT keep that the closer is free to disregard. Have to show some support for my old haunt. Besides, it's the only article where I had a chance to remove unsourced information on myself per WP:BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Cut it out Ritzman! -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per McDutchie. MtD (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Ritzman. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 22 September 2010 (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.