Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated


 * 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, given this close won't forestall an editorial merge. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated

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

Fork of a newsgroup that doesn't have its own page. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete This one's different. The show's creator was known to participate in this group, giving it a little more notoriety than the other groups currently up for AfD. That said, the sources provided are from the newsgroup's own archives, and not valid as reliable sources as not independent of the subject. Google News Archive hits do exist, but are cited only as background for wider articles, not as the subject of any articles by itself. That "in passing" mention does not pass WP:WEB. Other Google hits, like virtually every other USENET group, is primarily archive sites which mirror USENET postings. Google Groups is nothing more than Google's newsfeed in web form. DarkAudit (talk) 03:43, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Several game show personalities participated on alt.tv.game-shows and its article got deleted too. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 03:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete but redirect to jms or Babylon 5. His participation is interesting and there are some references to it out there but it doesn't really extend his notability to the newsgroup; otherwise every celebrity with a website would get an article for their website/forum/blog/myspace. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 *  Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet  - since the creator of the show was a contributor, and it seems to be the most popular of the "uses of the internet", but lacks individual notability due to a lack of verifiable information given the absence of reliable sources. -  Toon  05  16:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Change to Keep or Merge after sources have been added. Much better now. -  Toon  05  15:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the above vote to keep by Merging it with Babylon 5's use of the Internet. We should keep the current article's namespace as a redirect page.  As for those who vote to simply delete, I don't think that most people understand how groundbreaking this newsgroup has been vis-a-vis artist-writer communications.  Quite honestly, someone with time could write an actual college term paper on this newsgroup and its relationship to this subject. RK (talk) 23:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest that this page should remain as it is, as the extent that JMS has been contributing, and is continuing to contribute to this particular newsgroup is a remarkable point of difference between this newsgroup and most, if not all, other newsgroups. I would suggest that, perhaps, if there is no present link/reference from any page about the history of Usenet then a reference/link should be made to this page.

Personally, I am wondering why someone has even considered putting this page up for deletion when I can confirm that it does contain accurate information about a singularly unique aspect of the history of Usenet as this post by JMS himself back in 1997-05-27 confirms. I would hope that others who continue to be regular and longstanding valued contributors to this Usenet Newsgroup will be able to confirm this.

This page is not suitable for deletion, and merger is not suitable as it relates to both JMS as a writer AND to a unique aspect of the history of Usenet. Links would be more appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.101.90.57 (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, all information on wikipedia needs to be verifiable - which means information needs to have been covered in reliable sources. Notability guidelines also requires that the subject has been covered in depth by reliable independent sources - i.e. random people asserting its importance is not sufficient, sorry! -  Toon  05  13:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  20:58, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep

As a frequent participant on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, I can attest that J. Michael Straczynski posts almost exclusively to this USENET group. However, there are scholarly and notable sources that cite rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated as a source. Many fan sites also quote (with and without credit) information posted by J. Michael Straczynski on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. However, incorporating these citations into the article on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated would be somewhat problematic, since they cite information from a selection of over four thousand postings by J. Michael Stracynski.

Here is a selection of sources that cite rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated, there are many more:

Hop on Pop: The Politics and Pleasures of Popular Culture

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ABookSources&isbn=0822327376 By Henry Jenkins, Tara McPherson, Jane Shattuc Page 226 There are specific mentions of J. Michael Straczynski’s use of the Internet and posting to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated.

http://library.ups.edu/research/guides/citeurls.htm A Guide to Citing Internet Sources No definitive guidelines exist for citing electronic sources. Many groups are discussing the issue and are producing guidelines for review. Citation formats suggested here are based on Beyond the MLA Handbook: Documenting Electronic Sources on the Internet by Andrew Harnack and Gene Kleppinger and the MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers. A list of web sites containing citation guidelines appears at the end of this page.

… USENET NEWS Format Author. [author's e-mail address] "Subject Line." Date of Publication. [newsgroup] (date accessed). Example Straczynski, J.M. jmsatb5@aol.com "Re: ATTN JMS: Is B5 Dead?" 19 Jun. 1996. rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated (23 Jun. 1996)

http://movies.ign.com/articles/035/035905p1.html Interview with J. Michael Straczynski (Part 2 of 4) by Kenneth Plume September 6, 2000

He [J. Michael Straczynski] has been praised for "reaching out" to his fanbase and making them part of the creative process …, JMS' influence on the field of science fiction and Internet publicity is unquestionable: among other notices, he was voted one of the fifty most influential people on the Internet by Time magazine; was the subject of a significant write-up in Newsweek ("The Master and Slave of Babylon 5", June 1997.); …

Note: Links to the Time (magazine) and Newsweek articles do not appear to be available without a fee.

http://trekweb.com/articles/2008/07/15/J-Michael-Straczynski-Says-Babylon-5-Will-only-Return-as-a-Feature-Film.shtml J. Michael Straczynski Says Babylon 5 Will only Return as a Feature Film By GustavoLeao / 06:43, 15 July 2008 / General Genre/SciFi

--Dan Dassow (talk) 05:24, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. These are excellent sources that indicate how the newsgroup has intertwined with the creation of Babylon 5, how information about the show has been disseminated to the web, and how its creator has interacted with the viewers.  However, the citations would need to be crafted in such a way that they can be added to the article to bolster its obvious notability.  I'm tempted to try but I have little experience with formulating references (a recent experiment of mine failed).  I'm worried that a rush to article deletion will pass before enough time is allowed to edit these refs and others which could be found into the article. --Captain Infinity (talk) 11:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I suggest that we close the AfD and revisit this a later point in time. There is at best a weak call for deletion, primarily because the article currently lacks citations from sources other than rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated. I further suggest that an experience editor and/or admin advise Captain Infinity on how to incorporate citations from other sources. --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment No point in time is ever good to have a deletion discussion. There's no point closing this early, there's certainly no WP:SNOW situation, and no consensus. If the situation is the same after the allotted 5 days, there will be a decision by an admin on consensus, most likely "no consensus" looking at things in their current state. Looking at the stuff you provided above, however, it appears that the coverage is incidental - unless someone has that copy of Newsweek around (and even 1 article may not establish notability). Mentions in an article about Srac... aren't enough, and If we merged the article to "b5 and the internet", then it would just redirect there, where the article text could be read alongside other incidents of similar things. Also, with the debate bein open for another couple of days at least, it gives you plenty of time to cite the article, using these guidelines WP:REF, WP:CITE and WP:RS. If you want to message me on my talk page, I'd be happy to help you add citations to the article, and advise you on what sources are considered reliable etc, as I'm pretty familiar with full citations etc.-  Toon  05  12:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Dan, as the creator of the article and as a Wikipedia administrator, I can say that it this discussion is nowhere near being closed. Secondly, because you or I can attest to the truthfulness of the article is not enough.  The big flaw is that there are not a whole lot of sources in the article.  You and I both know that the sources exist, its just a matter of getting them in the article.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, by the way. I am a bit biased of course, but everything in the article is true and just needs further verification via sources, which is quite achievable.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 19:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash;Sean Whitton / 14:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * delete - no independent source to attest notability and accuracy of info. Mukadderat (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep It's notable and in need of cleanup. Deletion would be a travesty, since there's so much content here that doesn't exist in Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Jclemens (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's what a merge is for. WP:ITSUSEFUL isn't really an argument if the real guidelines like WP:WEB aren't met. So far the only thing this article has going for it is that the creator posted in the newsgroup. It fails WP:WEB in almost every other important respect. DarkAudit (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Not so. It's primarily notable as the first time a showrunner had used the Internet--the USENET at that time--to interact with fans. Jclemens (talk) 16:27, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd like to applaud Jclemens' work on the article, and his recent improvements should be taken into account by the closing admin. The article still has a couple of issues, but it is by no means deletable.  --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 21:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I would also like to applaud Jclemens efforts to improve this article.--Dan Dassow (talk) 13:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (see below ) I find the keep voters arguments impassioned but unimpressive. The threshold for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources and I have yet to see any evidence of that. The fact is that almost no Usenet groups, chat rooms, forums, etc are notable. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Approaching the subject with such a prejudice virtually guarantees that no argument in favor of keeping would be found "impressive" by you.   I apologize in advance if that sounds like a personal attack; I am only referring to the statemnet you just made.  It leaves no open doors. --Captain Infinity (talk) 02:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I clearly said "almost", I think that means there would have to be an "open door"... Beeblbrox (talk) 06:44, 30 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment Added two references in books published by university presses, a couple of web site citations. Added a few more web citations, which can be added to the article if needed, into the Talk page.  Take a look--none of them are fansites. The topic has always passed WP:WEB and WP:GNG--now the article does, too. Jclemens (talk) 17:41, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment Now I don't know what's what. Those look to be reliable sources, but without being able to see them, how are we to ascertain for ourselves whether it is significant non-trivial coverage. Not your fault or anything, I just hate it when this happens. Beeblbrox (talk) 17:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I got both off of books.google.com, search "Straczynski usenet" at books.google.com shows both of them, and a few more I have yet to investigate. Jclemens (talk) 18:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Great content, but doesn't need its own article. --Masamage ♫ 02:45, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of the recent improvements. Merging to Babylon 5's use of the Internet would unbalance that article. - Eureka Lott 20:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per expansion with refs to scholarly articles.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge. I just don't see there ever being enough unique content to warrant a separate article for this newsgroup.  The article is well-written, but some of it is generic description (what flamewars are, how moderated groups work, etc.), and copy-editing could make the rest more concise.  So I think this is best treated within other articles.  Babylon 5's use of the Internet would seem ideal, and would in fact improve the result by providing more context.  Bravo to the contributors for their work, though.  It's good material, and well-sourced, I just think it belongs under another heading.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd rather have someone post a principled and well thought-out disagreement than a "per Jclemens" !vote. The level of discourse in AfD's would be improved if more people took the time to !vote like you. Jclemens (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Completely correct Jclemens, people seem to misunderstand the whole consensus-based decision making process. Not that it matters, considering that closing admins do understand this and decide based not upon !votes. -  Toon  05  23:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge (changed from above)While there are in fact reliable sources here, the article also contains sections that are somewhat over-detailed in their descriptions of rather mundane processes of the group. The notable aspect is the participation of a person involved with the show, not how long a moderator has to hold your hand. Anyway, I think the project would be better served by merging this content as suggested above. Beeblbrox (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge with and Redirect to Babylon 5's use of the Internet. Since the newsgroup itself has not been the subject of coverage by multiple, reliable, third-party published sources, there are notability and verifiability issues that make a standalone article problematic. — Satori Son 13:10, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Actually, if you look at the sources, a number of them DO cover the newsgroup itself. I'm confused about what additional "multiple, reliable, third-party published sources" you would like to see--It's got books, an MIT masters' thesis, and a number of news items referencing it.  I'm pretty sure this is now among the most referenced newsgroup article in Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ... and a Wall Street Journal article that I just found on ProQuest. How about we merge Babylon 5's use of the Internet into here, hmm?Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet I think the real significance here stems from the creator's participation, which is an extension of the topic in the proposed merge destination.  I agree it is certainly notable, and would perhaps be the most notable section of the resultant article.  But, to my mind, this article is at its root a section of the parent, Babylon 5's use of the Internet.  At any rate, the current article needs much NPOV love.  Forridean 03:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Has some reliable non-newsgroup sources, and they are used in key sentences. By the way, I suggest we no longer use notability guidelines, and only utilise WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR to determine whether an article should be deleted, just as Jimmy Wales, Larry Sanger and many notable inclusionists suggest. --RekishiEJ (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * This is an AfD about this particular article. If you want to make such a major change, you should take it to the village pump or some other forum for discussion of policy changes. And by the way, Larry Sanger left Wikipedia to found Citizendium, which only allows experts, not regular users like me and you, to determine what stays and what goes. Beeblbrox (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. This newsgroup, and it's predecessor rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 are famous.  BBC were using it as a source years ago - . Nfitz (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the citation. I just included in in the article Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated--Dan Dassow (talk) 10:03, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge to Babylon 5's use of the Internet, this is a good article, but merged with Babylon 5's use of the Internet it would be even better, and a good length. I don't believe it would unbalance that article, as Eureka Lott suggested - from what I know of the subject, JMS's participation on rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5 was for sure the most significant element of Babylon 5's use of the Internet. --Stormie (talk) 12:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. It is notable and shows it quite well as JMS's involvement, &c.--DrWho42 (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Summation If I may, it appears that there have been no recent delete votes since a few of us started finding and adding RS'es. The question remains whether the article should be kept, or merged into Babylon 5's use of the Internet.  A couple of editors have noted that this newsgroup makes up a very large portion of the unique, encyclopedic part of B5's use of the Internet, and I agree--WP:UNDUE would not apply.  I'm beginning to lean towards a merge direction myself, in that can I see this work as the main section of that (currently smaller) article.  Frankly, I think the combination, based on what we've found, probably has a good chance to go GA/FA with appropriate effort invested, while neither article can meet the criteria of comprehensiveness alone.  Would that interest all the other editors who've been working on keeping the article? Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No. B5's use of the internet, is separate from the specific, notable forum on which some interaction took place.  The group's history and prominence are tied more closely to Straczynski than the Babylon 5 television series - it was Straczynski's involvement and interaction that makes the group notable both in terms of the historical impact (the proto-blog nature of Straczynski's interactions, the pioneering nature of a Hollywood producer being open with fans on all his projects) and current status as the go-to discussion forum on the works of an award winning writer/producer/director (of comics, novels and film outside of Babylon 5) frequented by the subject himself.  To merge the articles does not increase their quality as they are really separate subjects, and as further justification for Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated to continue in light of the broader article (Babylon 5's use of the Internet), well, there is a reason WP:Summary style exists... --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - &lt;*&gt; 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see the distinction being as significant as you portray it. Most of Babylon 5's use of the Internet deals with how JMS pioneered the use of the Internet, both for promotion and fan interaction, with a TV show that just happened to be B5.  JMS and B5 are co-joined concepts, for the purposes of that article.  These concepts are better handled as part of a cohesive whole, not artificially separated.  The existing B5 article isn't strictly about the Internet, either.  (GEnie is not the Internet.)  We can move the article to Use of computer media for promotion and fan interaction for productions associated with J. Michael Straczynski if we must have a perfectly accurate page title.  ;-)  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:19, 2 August 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.