Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.tv.real-world
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You have new messages (last change).
In fairness to the user who wrote this, the article has been restored and the discussion reopened.'
- 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 debate was delete. Johnleemk | Talk 06:25, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Alt.tv.real-world
nn Usenet group, forumcruft. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Speedy delete. Completely non-notable. User's only other edits were repeated reposting of the slogan. No content whatsoever. - Lucky 6.9 03:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)- I wasn't done editing it. "Repeted reposting of the slogan"? I was modifying errors I found as I read. Why was this deleted?72.49.106.198 04:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Changing vote to simple delete in its current state. User claims that this is one of Usenet's largest groups, but there's no claim in the article itself. Will gladly consider a change of vote if notability can be established. - Lucky 6.9 06:30, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Weak keep if cleaned up. I'm not sure how to judge notability for newgroups. Google groups gives about as many entries for alt.tv.real-world as the least-notable newsgroups with articles listed at List of newsgroups. For example, compare 27,000 posts in alt.zines [1] to 31,000 posts in alt.tv.real-world [2]. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:56Z- One way to judge notability is to look for multiple non-trivial published works about the newsgroup, such as FAQs on http://faqs.org./ for example. (This newsgroup has no FAQ there.) Counting posts is not a metric that is in any way reliable. In addition to the reason described below, consider the fact that raw article counts do not exclude Usenet spam. Uncle G 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete since no published works about the newsgroup that I can find. FAQ for Alt.tv and other sources all still lists it as about the TV show rather than what the article describes, so the claims are unverifiable. Thanks Uncle G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:05Z
- Nonsense, I'm afraid. Of course the FAQ will show the newsgroup to be about the TV show; it's an outdated FAQ from before the transformation of the group into a hub for off-topic comedy and trolling. The new users of the group are not likely to be inclined to write and publish FAQs on their own activities, nor are the conventional FAQ anthologies on the Web likely to accept such FAQs. The "claims" would be easily verifiable using Google Groups, if only the author had bothered to include some links (a strike against him, unfortunately).
- I'm not predispositioned to delete (as you could tell from my vote changing); just couldn't verify the claims. Since you say it is indeed easily verifiable could you tell us, and tell the article, where to find reputable references? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 01:07Z
- Read what I wrote again, please. I didn't say "is easily verifiable," I said "would be easily verifiable" if the author (who surely possesses this information, if it exists) had taken the time to include some links to relevant articles in Google's Usenet archive. If the author, or an author, can do this, there will be your evidence in favor of keeping. If not, delete.
- Okay, I see what you mean. However, I'm not sure that three or four links to posts would qualify as evidence that the newsgroup has permanently gone off-topic. Quarl (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you were looking for evidence of notability, not evidence that the newsgroup had gone permanently off-topic. The former could, as I said, be demonstrated with some links to the Google archive; the latter would not be so easy to establish with links of any kind (one would have to present some kind of overview of recent activity, with the number of off-topic posts compared to the number of on-topic posts, if any).
- I suppose it's no consolation that I was in the process of updating the article, in which I was citing the historical significance of the group, and intended to include many links to the Google archives supporting these claims? Because, that was, in fact, what I was doing. I hadn't uploaded anything yet, because I didn't want to put it out there unfinished. So that's how it's going to be in the annals of history: "non-notable." Goodbye forever, I guess.169.155.33.1 23:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
- I thought you were looking for evidence of notability, not evidence that the newsgroup had gone permanently off-topic. The former could, as I said, be demonstrated with some links to the Google archive; the latter would not be so easy to establish with links of any kind (one would have to present some kind of overview of recent activity, with the number of off-topic posts compared to the number of on-topic posts, if any).
- Okay, I see what you mean. However, I'm not sure that three or four links to posts would qualify as evidence that the newsgroup has permanently gone off-topic. Quarl (talk) 18:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Read what I wrote again, please. I didn't say "is easily verifiable," I said "would be easily verifiable" if the author (who surely possesses this information, if it exists) had taken the time to include some links to relevant articles in Google's Usenet archive. If the author, or an author, can do this, there will be your evidence in favor of keeping. If not, delete.
- I'm not predispositioned to delete (as you could tell from my vote changing); just couldn't verify the claims. Since you say it is indeed easily verifiable could you tell us, and tell the article, where to find reputable references? —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-18 01:07Z
- Nonsense, I'm afraid. Of course the FAQ will show the newsgroup to be about the TV show; it's an outdated FAQ from before the transformation of the group into a hub for off-topic comedy and trolling. The new users of the group are not likely to be inclined to write and publish FAQs on their own activities, nor are the conventional FAQ anthologies on the Web likely to accept such FAQs. The "claims" would be easily verifiable using Google Groups, if only the author had bothered to include some links (a strike against him, unfortunately).
- Delete since no published works about the newsgroup that I can find. FAQ for Alt.tv and other sources all still lists it as about the TV show rather than what the article describes, so the claims are unverifiable. Thanks Uncle G. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-17 02:05Z
- One way to judge notability is to look for multiple non-trivial published works about the newsgroup, such as FAQs on http://faqs.org./ for example. (This newsgroup has no FAQ there.) Counting posts is not a metric that is in any way reliable. In addition to the reason described below, consider the fact that raw article counts do not exclude Usenet spam. Uncle G 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Note: Is a post-count really an indication of the notoriety of a newsgroup? Trade groups and utility groups get hundreds of posts a day, but that doesn't mean they've made any historical changes or contributions to the Internet community. alt.tv.real-world, along with other groups (alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, alt.alien.vampire.flonk.flonk.flonk, etc.) changed the face of Usenet. Just a thought, in our favour, but a thought nontheless. Wavy G 07:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- I was using post-count to argue in your favor :) Feel free to provide some evidence of notability other than post count to convince others that the article should be kept. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 07:47Z
- I would agree that it isn't a reliable metric, for the simple reason that it is easy to post to Usenet in automated fashion, as many of the "binaries" newsgroups demonstrate, without human intervention at all. Uncle G 09:34, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nn newsgroup. Stifle 20:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, nn. Pavel Vozenilek 21:52, 17 January 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.
