Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.soccer


 * 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 as there is no evidence to show it's notable. пﮟოьεԻ  5  7  15:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Rec.sport.soccer

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

USENET newsgroup of unknown notability. Since there is apparently no notability standard for USENET groups, I will judge by WP:WEB. Although there are admittedly thousands of Google hits for this and other USENET groups, nearly every one of said hits is to a web site that archives USENET posts, and not any sort of third party coverage. All references in this article are to the group itself, and not a reliable source per WP:RS. The first external link opens the group in the user's newsreader application using that reader's particular newsfeed. Google Groups is just Google's newsfeed. All in all this is just a discussion group for a particular subject, of which there are tens of thousands. It's presence on USENET merely predates the emergence of individual web forums, which by and large do not pass WP:WEB except in certain exceptional cases. I submit that this is not an exceptional case. DarkAudit (talk) 00:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of reliable sources and lack of notability per WP:WEB. Also delete Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation was spun off by DarkAudit into another AfD which I just closed as a snowball keep. The Foundation does seem more notable than the newsgroup that spawned it. Ten Pound Hammer Farfel  and his otters • (Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 02:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I'd have to agree with the above suggestion. There is nothing inherently notable about a usenet group, and as pointed out by DarkAudit it's just a old-school forum which fails any sort of notability test. Q  T C 00:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both; wholly unnotable. JJL (talk) 00:52, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect per Sillyfolkboy if the target is to be kept, as appears to be the case. JJL (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both, per a well-argued nom. Do not pass either of WP:WEB, WP:N. Nsk92 (talk) 01:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete the newsgroup and Keep the RSSSF article. It would be better to remove RSSSF from the header of this AFD (I think the nominator can do this since the nom was in fact about the newsgroup). Right now the listing gives the impression that both items are newsgroups while in fact Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation is an article about a notable sports association. Nsk92 (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Take a look at this Google News archive search. Many of the 22 articles are behind paywalls, but the previews and snippets seem to add up to significant coverage. --Eastmain (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * All I see is false positives and a trivial mention. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Chirps•Clams•Chowder) 02:13, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, mostly references to "Rec.Sport.Soccer archive (http://www.rsssf.com/archive.html)" as a source used. Possibly a case could be built for its notability, but I don't see it yet; certainly Rec.sport.soccer doesn't get other than passing coverage though, as one example among many. JJL (talk) 02:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Just linking to Google News archives does not prove anything. None of the articles cited are about the newsgroup. That is not significant coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 03:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:07, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Unsure about the newsgroup, but a very, very strong Keep for RSSSF. That is the deepest and most reliable source for worldwide historical football information out there. - fchd (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep rsssf is the single most important website for football statistics. Yes the references could be improved, but the site definitely deserves a mention. It is used as an reliable reference/external link on hundreds of football related Wikipedia articles. E  P  21:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep RSSSF ugen64 (talk) 21:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC) Since rsssf has been removed from this AfD I'm striking my comment. I don't feel strongly enough about the Rec.sport.soccer article to comment. E  P  22:51, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep RSSSF When it comes to statistics, rsssf is indeed the most important and reliable website around. Clearly notable.  Ban  Ray  22:00, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the RSSSF article has been removed from the nomination, I'm withdrawing my !vote. Ban  Ray  10:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Split this AfD? My original nom was for the newsgroup's article. The article on RSSSF was added later by another editor. I'd prefer not to confuse the issue and have others come in with a blanket keep or delete when they are only talking about one or the other. DarkAudit (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And done, since my original intent was for rec.sport.soccer by itself. DarkAudit (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * A new discussion for RSSF by itself has been opened so debate on that article may continue. see the top of today's log. DarkAudit (talk) 23:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation. GiantSnowman 16:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. non-notable USENET newsgroup (and the article is unsourced). --Carioca (talk) 18:46, 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 / 14:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per Ten Pound Hammer, we do not need to index every newsgroup on Usenet ever created. Not if they don't have non-trivial coverage by reliable third party sources, that is.  JBsupreme (talk) 20:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep As we need a policy, I propose that all of the established usernet groups with substantial numbers of postings be included for wikipedia articles. We can make whatever  rules for notability we choose, not being bound by either precedent or analogy or general guidelines. Given our central origin in the internet, we should cover as much of the early part of the internet as we can find acceptable sources for--though we are in fact bound by the fundamental policy of Verifiability, can can choose whatever way of interpreting it suits our requirements.  We're not indexing usenet, but giving information about it. If we  want to do it from the source of the newsgroup itself, we can do so. DGG (talk) 02:14, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * They all have substantial numbers of postings, because of spam. Determining which have a large number of "real" postings would be very hard. I too suggested the need for a WP:NEWSGROUP at Articles_for_deletion/Alt.sysadmin.recovery. This may be needed (as a subsection of WP:WEB, presumably). JJL (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
 * certainly agreed about the spam, which is what killed them off. But we can filter out the overwhelming spam from list of ghits, so I suppose it's possible. someday I hope someone will do the necessary work. DGG (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Rec.Sport.Soccer Statistics Foundation, minimal info on the group would best be presented as a short section in the RSSSF article. Sillyfolkboy (talk) 14:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I see a lot of sense in this if the target is indeed to be kept. JJL (talk) 02:56, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I split the nom to clear some confusion. RSSSF was snowball kept, as expected. Most citations are not for the newsgroup, but for the foundation. The group is still at it's heart just a message board. Big numbers of postings is not an indicator of notability. Some alt.* groups get hundreds of thousands a day. Until a separate standard is devised, WP:WEB will have to suffice, and by that standard, there's not a lot going here. DarkAudit (talk) 14:37, 31 July 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.