Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sporgery


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ after the nominator changed their view. Owen&times; &#9742;  07:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Sporgery

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Wholly non-notable, and seemingly not a clearly independent concept. I think this article only exists for the very incidental Scientology connection. Remsense 诉  22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Remsense  诉  22:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This seems like it would be a notable concept, but all I can find are blogs, WP mirrors, and archives of Usenet discussions. References cited are all from 1998-99, unsurprisingly.  I could maybe live with a redirect to Spamming or a partial merge with the "In different media" section of that article, if the Scientology connections were removed or slimmed down to a sentence or two. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)


 * Keep: I spent quite a bit of time reading articles related to this subject and found that the term sporgery has long been added to the internet lexicon. Though its origins and usage are related to Usenet newsgroups (1990s), which are in practice rarely used nowadays, I found the use of the term several times in the waning and post-usenet era (2000+). I have updated the article accordingly, as well as updating the related articles alt.religion.scientology and Scientology and the Internet. There were multiple sources I did not add, which mentioned sporgery in their discussions about "language"; they were brief mentions, but I found it interesting they even used the term in their examples, since it seems obscure, but perhaps not as obscure as first thought. (Note that sporgery is used in 5 non-Scientology-related Wikipedia articles. ) There were other contemporary sources I was unsuccessful accessing, such as a SpringerLink item (Wikipedia Library's subscription to Springer has expired) which would add to the contemporary sources now cited in the article—such as Koch, Harley, and Hicks—bringing the topic up to a verifiable level of passing WP:GNG, which wasn't obvious in the version that was nominated for AfD. If, however, this AfD leans towards "not-Keep", then I would suggest dumping (merging) the majority of the content underneath (where I can clean that up), and the generic content into Newsgroup spam.    ▶ I am Grorp ◀  08:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Nice sleuthing. I wouldn't have nominated the article if I came across it in this state, suffice it to say. Remsense  诉  08:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as a validly referenced historical "old Internet" topic. Geschichte (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep, with thanks to for the WP:HEY save. -- asilvering (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2024 (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.