Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/There Is No Cabal


 * 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 of the discussion was Keep. Overwhelming consensus to keep. --Tony Sidaway 02:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

There Is No Cabal
Neologism, the jargon file website while it defines that the term is used on usenet, the rest of the article is complete WP:OR. There is no basis given in that source for how the term is used, what is meant by its use, or why it is used. The article puts forth unsourced theories and draws unsourced conclusions, all of which is original research. I'm not arguing the notability of the statement. If you want to argue for keep, please address the points raised, this is a debate for concensus, not a vote. Crossmr 14:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The article definitely needs to be rewritten, ideally with some sources - I won't argue with that. Also, discussion of power structures in Usenet are not appropriate to that article. The rough history of the term and its spread through the internet would be nice. I'd say keep, hoping we can find someone to fix it. - Che Nuevara:  Join  the   Revolution 15:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This has been here almost 2 years and no one has cared to write it properly. What gives you any indication that any further time will change that? --Crossmr 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Hacker's Dictionary and the New Hacker's Dictionary are published works. Mackensen (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see either of those listed as references, and do they contain any besides saying "TINC = There is no Cabal and this is used on Usenet?"--Crossmr 15:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Then they can be listed. The point about entries from the Jargon File is that they have been published; therefore the Jargon File in itself is a viable source. Mackensen (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * But it doesn't say anything. All it says is: "Abbreviation: “There Is No Cabal”" It doesn't go on to provide a source for any of the rest of the material in the article. Removing the unsourced material, all you are left with is the first sentence and the first 4 words of the second sentence. At which point WP:NOT wikipedia is not a dictionary applies.--Crossmr 15:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's under "backbone cabal." Tom Harrison Talk 15:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And is that also in a published source? This jargon file is just hosted on Eric S Raymond's personal site.--Crossmr 15:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The jargon file is also ISBN 0262680920. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you could use interlibrary loan and check, but I think Eric Raymond is a reliable source for "backbone cabal." It's available at McGill as well, if you prefer. Worst case, we could say, "According to Eric Raymond, the term came into use..." Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * True or not, your guessing that you think he's a reliable source doesn't exactly meet WP:V, is there some evidence that he is indeed a subject matter expert?--Crossmr 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ... Tom Harrison gave you the link to his Wikipedia page. Did you read through it? It establishes him fairly well as a subject matter expert. Captainktainer * Talk 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Neutral - It needs to be sourced a little better. As of right now, it's an OR dicdef.  It's obviously notable and I don't like the idea of deleting it considering that it is referenced so often in Wikipedia discussions.  Also, the self-reference doesn't seem appropriate here.  When it's something like RFA or Assume good faith that is obviously fundamental to Wikipedia and soemthing a newbie would search for, having heard the name, but not knowing about namespaces, the self-reference needs to be there - but this one is an inside joke and really not appropriate for a SR. Personally, I think the article needs to be rewritten substantially ... but deletion doesn't seem necessary. BigDT 15:58, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment hmm, I got a huge amount of g-hits for the term so it may be notable.-- Andeh 16:03, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I address this issue in the nomination.--Crossmr 16:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Useful, notable, cited, and mostly harmless. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Its still currently uncited. The possibility of citations doesn't save an article if no one wants to do the work. Notability was addressed in the nom, and "useful and mostly harmless" are not criteria for inclusion in wikipedia.
 * Keep The Cabal (TINC) forbids deletion of this article. Just zis Guy you know? 16:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin: a merge & redirect to backbone cabal would also be OK by me. Just zis Guy you know? 12:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rewrite if there's a problem, but keep or merge into lumber cartel (although if anything I think the other way around would make more sense). People years or decades hence who see the mysterious inscription "TINC" and come to Wikipedia for enlightenment should get it. --♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, forget the merger part. Hereafter I preview. ♥ «Charles A. L.» 17:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The problem is a total lack of credible citation. Rewriting doesn't solve that.--Crossmr 17:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak delete I've never heard this statement before and reading this article hasn't exactly helped me. Is it a statement used by members of the cabal? Is it a statement that implies in actuality just what it says, that a cabal does not exist? Do people really use it, or is it just some Internet message board people? Unless this can be unambiguous and sourced, this is useless, and I'm not seeing much potential for development. If someone rewrites it to address this stuff I'll reconsider. GassyGuy 20:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obligatory keep per my comments on Lumber Cartel. Opabinia regalis 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, this isn't on notability and whether it exists, its about the fact that other than its existence the rest of the article is unsourced and a violation of WP:OR and WP:V--Crossmr 00:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Words of Wisdom references this page, it's adequately sourced per the Jargon File (which is the online version of the New Hacker's Dictionary, written by ESR who is a giant arse but is an expert source for the evolution of the Internet), heck, here's the Google Groups search for it. I can't really see a good reason to delete. Captainktainer * Talk 00:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Google groups can't be used as sources, the Jargon file only sources its existence and The words of wisdom page linking to it is of no concern. How about some valid ones that actually address the problems with the article? The fact that nonthing outside its existence is sourcable? And what contained in the Jargon file is all that can be written about it on wikipedia as this is the only credible source on it, and thus doesn't qualify for an article at 1 sentence.--Crossmr 00:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * as for good reasons WP:V being the corner stone and non-negotiable policy of wikipedia is reason enough by itself.--Crossmr 00:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Did you follow the link in Jargon File to "Backbone Cabal"? I've also added the original FAQ from alt.conspiracy.usenet-cabal that addressed the issue- and while postings from Google Groups are unacceptable as reliable sources for matters not directly related to Usenet, they are a reliable primary source for matters related to usenet itself. There are enough sources to meet WP:V; everything else is context for interwiki links. Captainktainer * Talk 00:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * faqs from newsgroups are again not usable sources. Usenet posts are NEVER usable as primary or secondary sources on usenet. WP:V points to this Reliable_sources which clearly states: "Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources" That doesn't say "unless you're talking about usenet".--Crossmr 01:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * the backbone cabal link is pretty meaningless since the it says "This phrase did not come into existence until after the cabal dispearsed" and the backbone page makes no reference to the phrase.--Crossmr 01:03, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and since there are no credible sources outside the mention in the Jargon File, everyone claiming how notable it is should really reconsider that. I believe this falls under only being notable to a limited a group, as in those within a small circle of all the people who used usenet, and not so notable that the only attention its received outside the usenet circle is a small mention in a dictionary style book.--Crossmr 01:27, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If not keep, at least merge into Backbone cabal. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 00:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral While I'd rather see the article kept, per Crossmr's points it's difficult to have an article that does not consist of original research. The phrase is at List of Internet slang. Danny Lilithborne 02:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Which is probably the only place this actually belongs as the only information sourcable is just big enough to make an entry there.--Crossmr 02:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to Internet jargon and history section of Usenet article. Usenet trivia, even in Usenet's heyday. Usenet is defunct; its trivia was of questionable notablity in its prime. At best merge with Usenet article, otherwise delete. dryguy 05:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: per JzG and Mackensen. Uncensored anarchic nature of of Usenet was seen as a great advance over previous publication methods. Note to closing admin: Nomination was good though. Why haven't we invited that man into the Cabal? Stephen B Streater 11:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Notability has been stipulated to not be in question. So the term exists. As I understand the argument of the nom as of now, (it seems to have shifted around a bit, I can't quite tell though) the contention is that the article is bad, and that no one has fixed it since it has existed, and that it's not sourced. The nom seems to have a strenuous objection (near as I can tell) to the use of the Jargon Dictionary. The JD is a published and purchasable work with an ISBN, which is itself highly notable and has existed for a very long time relative to most internet things, by a notable author who many recognise as an expert in this area of culture. I think the objection to the JD as a source is therefore clearly unfounded. I think the article itself could stand improvement but is already sourced and cited adequately enough as of this moment. I think the suggestion that this article is OR is spurious. Strong keep. ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but you would say tat, woudln't you? Being in the cabal and all.... Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * actually I've addressed the Jargon dictionary being a source, its only a source for an explanation of TINC and absolutely nothing else in the article. The rest of the article is unsourced OR, and once thats removed all you're left with is "TINC = There is no Cabal and this was used on usenet" and that in no way qualifies for an article.--Crossmr 13:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * "Actually", you haven't addressed the issue to my satisfaction. There is lots of info out there on this term. Reasserting that it's OR doesn't make it so. Feel free to remove material you clearly feel is unsourced though, and justify your work on the talk page for each removal. No change in my view that this is a strong keep and that there is a lot of spuriousness in the nomination. And no, I'm not in any cabals, to the best of my knowledge, well, except that one I guess. ++Lar: t/c 13:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Bear in mind that the linked "backbone cabal" article in the Jargon Dictionary contains more information on TINC. Calling the rest of it OR only works if you discount the official FAQ as being of dubious source, which is an unnecessarily strict reading of WP:RS per this discussion in the WP:RS archives- especially since the authorship of the FAQ never came under challenge from the author, who was intimately involved in Usenet at the time. As for the unrelated assertion that the term is defunct Usenet trivia, a quick scan of the talk and Wikipedia namespaces should be enough to permanently disabuse anyone of that notion. Captainktainer * Talk 13:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the source, the contemporaneous references and the publications I'd call this reliable enough. Plus, there is apparently no dispute that the phrase exists, has existed for a long time, and that this is the most common explanation of its origins; I'm not sure what needs to change here. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per dryguy, not notable. Usenetcruft. Recury 16:01, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * How then do you explain the claims of "cabalism" (by the way, TINC) on Wikipedia, given that WP:NOT Usenet? Did I mention that any attempts to delete this article are pointless (see List of Cabals, which doesn't exist) and that TINC? [ælfəks] 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I explain them by pointing out that Wikipedia is filled with giant nerds, like yourself, just like usenet was filled with them. Shouldn't you be working on Pokemon articles or something? Recury 16:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Precisely. Usenet was full of nerds, and the nerds propagated the TINC meme.  And the mem crossed from Usenet to Wikipedia, and has been around for over twenty years.  I'd say that was pretty good grounds for assuming it has legs... Just zis Guy you know? 19:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep; the inclusionist cabal demands it. Oh, and TINC. [ælfəks] 16:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The Jargon file references clearly establish that this is not a neologism. As for the rest of the complaints about OR and such, AfD is not the place to resolve those. Just edit the thing. Bryan 02:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * and in editing it, there would be nothing left, other than whats covered in the Jargon file. Which would be about 2 lines and doesn't qualify for an article. It would be a pertpetual 1 or 2 line stub that couldn't be expanded.--Crossmr 04:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep. I obviously believe TINC, although apparently that does not count for much (I stopped keeping track of such things when I got booted out of TC 8 or 9 years ago).  I'd go into the whole spiel about "There is No Documentation" or "There is No References" but Dave Hayes might crawl out of hiding.  And, the irony of deleting the "There is No Cabal" page knows no bounds....  --Mschnierle 06:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment For reference, this user owns this page, which claims credit for the original cabal conspiracy FAQ. Captainktainer * Talk 12:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not an enyclopedic topic. At best merge into an article on Usenet jargon or something. --kingboyk 17:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - any content problems with the article are a need for cleanup, not a question of possible deletion. This topic is verifiable and sufficiently noteworthy and encyclopedic for inclusion. Johntex\talk 17:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The topic is verifiable in that it exists, and since you want to bring up noteworthyness, please provide some credible citations to support that comment. If you read above, I mentioned that once all the non-verifiable information is removed, you're left with only a line or two and its not worth its own article. In addition this article has been here a long time, and its been in the unsourced, original research state that it is now for about the same amount of time. If no one wants to maintain it and bring it up to wikipedia standards why keep it? Maybe to save time we should just create one-line stub articles on every notable topic and piece of information on the planet and hope someone comes around and actually turns them into something worthy? There is no credible source for this outside the jargon file. That speaks to its notability and to th expandability of the article. --Crossmr 19:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That'd be a great Idea! We could maybe then have people slowly adding to those, slowly refining it. We could even put them on one of those new fangled things called a "wiki". It'd work great! Perhaps we could call it wikipedia? :-) (by the way, don't the usenet archives also contain this information?) Kim Bruning 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Daniel Brandt, wikitruth, wikipediawatch.org, or a related article. DyslexicEditor 01:39, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - worthwhile information on a common phrase on Usenet, not a neologism. And of course it is true, TINC.  --67.111.218.175 18:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * We don't need articles on common Usenet phrases. Recury 19:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per the Caba&mdash; NO CARRIER
 * HA! I was going to say "Gosh, what next? Are we going to call this usenetcruft?" . But someone actually came in and said that. TINC is relevant to wikipedia in many ways. If for some bizarre reason the history of usenet and internet is not encyclopedic enough, then at least move to wikipedia: namespace or meta. This page gets (over)used a lot in wikipedia discussions. Kim Bruning 21:46, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I thought I'd voted 'keep on this before. Do you have any idea how many pages link to this already? DS 02:17, 12 July 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.