Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.football.college (second 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 delete. - Mailer Diablo 20:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Rec.sport.football.college
This article was previously deleted at this AfD, which had minimal discussion. A DRV consensus overturned this result in light of new evidence, with even those favoring deletion admitting that this was an interesting test case. Please consult the DRV before commenting here. It may be interesting for this debate to consider whether any USENET newsgroup could be encyclopedically notable, as mentioned in the DRV. This is a procedural nomination, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete what distinguishes this from the thousands of other newsgroups in the rec.* hierarchy? Many Usenet groups have a long history, many have illustrious contributors, but even then most are essentially just a lot of people shooting the breeze.  I don't see any compelling case to have articles on Usenet groups, much as I would love to document the fascinating goings-on at uk.rec.sheds.  The sources, such as they are, are almost exclusively self-referential.  Even though many of the groups have more contributors over their history than the average web forum, the number of active contributors at any one time is often small. Just zis Guy you know? 16:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't see why WP:V wouldn't apply here, either. Recury 18:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I don't see how it's notable, either. --Fang Aili talk 19:16, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all ST47 19:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete "averages 10,000 posts per month" is equivalent to "South Annex branch post office mailbox #4 gets 10,000 letters per month." This has nothing to do with notability, which still isn't even asserted. ~ trialsanderrors 20:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, nor is notability asserted. And, IMHO, only in extremely unusual cases should a Usenet group be included. So unusual, that I can't think of a good reason. AfD'd once, speedied twice, can we be done, now? Akradecki 21:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Create a more interesting artice that covers the sociological aspects of all IRC Usenet newsgroup channels, and make particular mention of this channel. GChriss &lt;always listening&gt;  &lt;c&gt; 23:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
 * You appear to have read the wrong article by accident. The article under discussion here is about a Usenet newsgroup, not an IRC channel. Uncle G 00:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It already exists...see Usenet. Akradecki 16:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I, for one, would concede notability and accept that this group is more notable than a lot of things on Wikipedia. However, there are no non-self-generated sources of information that I have seen so I can't imagine that a verifiable encyclopedic article could be deleted.  Until that changes, delete. BigDT 18:10, 6 September 2006 (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.