Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Surfers (talker)


 * 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. Stifle (talk) 14:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Surfers (talker)

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines, lacking non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources. JBsupreme ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 05:07, 7 April 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Talker. Such sources as I can find (eg here) seem pretty convinced it's important to the history of electronic communications but unfortunately there's not enough of them to (a) provide content for a substantive article or (b) pass WP:N.  I remain open to changing my mind if better sources emerge. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been discussed previously, but BBC's h2g2 site (which you've linked above) is based upon user-generated content and does not rise to our definition of a reliable source. In fact, h2g2 is a wiki of sorts.  Furthermore, the coverage of "Surfers" in that h2g2 article is quite trivial.    JBsupreme  ( talk ) ✄ ✄ ✄	 02:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen arguments in those previous discussions that h2g2 does, in fact, have all the elements of a reliable source despite content being user-submitted, due to its editorial oversight and fact-checking. Is there anyplace where any consensus on this has been codified? &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 00:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. Best I could do was two results in Google Books on one of its old addresses, muscle.rai.kcl.ac.uk, and one result on another, surfers.itf.org.uk.  All appear to be trivial mentions in reprinted mudlists. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Cite added to independent, arguably reliable source that establishes its significant role in the history of Internet talkers. &mdash;chaos5023 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Bordering on delete. Who authors the articles at netlingo?  There is at least passing coverage in that source but I am not entirely comfortable with using it as a source.  RFerreira (talk) 23:36, 16 April 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.