Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.suicide.holiday

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. Linuxbeak | Talk 00:02, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] alt.suicide.holiday

24.166.6.153 (talk • contribs) performed two out of the three steps for nominating an article for deletion. Since xe gave xyr rationale, I've completed the process. Uncle G 16:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

not notable, and possibly dangerous. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.166.6.153 (talk • contribs) 2005-10-04 04:09:47 UTC.

• I don't see how it's not notable. I think it's informative and it's important that it stays here. As for "dangerous," if one thinks that it's dangerous, one has to remove the group itself along with their archives, methods, etc. Deleting this article is like deleting an article on Hitler, because people may decide to follow him and become neo-nazis. Or we might as well delete all the articles on controlled and dangerous substances, lest people should find out about them and use them. BittenCaliban 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it or, add it to another article about websites which encourage suicide. This is one of the issues brought up by the internet and it's important that people know what is out there.user:XYaAsehShalomX
• Speedy keep -- unsigned nomination by someone who probably doesn't know anything about Wikipedia policy -- WP:NOT censored. ♥purplefeltangel ^(talk) ♥ ^(contribs) 22:40, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep verifiable.--Isotope23 17:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Vivian Darkbloom 21:46, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I tend to guage the notability of usenet groups similarly to forums. This one doesn't seem to be paticularly notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -- Not famous, but infamous. 25k Google hits (web search, not groups) puts it in the realm of possibly notable, and being the "publisher" of the Methods File pushes them into the realm of net.lore. Consider it a historical article -- that such a thing was even available on the Internet was a big deal back in the day when the Internet was strange and new to many. Subject of a Dutch documentary and a series of articles in Wired as recently as 2003 — mendel ☎ 23:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• Comment: I don't know about the usenet group, but their Methods File is pretty well-known. --Carnildo 23:23, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this is important and verifiable so why should we erase it Yuckfoo 00:13, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Very notable Usenet newsgroup with storied history, controversy, and wide participation, plus cultural significance for the pro- vs. anti-suicide issue. MCB 03:56, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per above. PacknCanes 23:01, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep & Rename. Alt.suicide.holiday is not the best name for this article, maybe try Internet Suicide Websites!? - Bwfc 16:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not a website, it's a Usenet newsgroup named alt.suicide.holiday. I'm not sure I understand why you don't like that name. — mendel ☎ 16:30, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An important part of net history. fuzzie 21:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable, and potentially "dangerous" is no evidently reason for deletion. Alex Watson 21:32, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Completely unthinkable that such a noted institution would be undocumented. Well known even outside the realm of the internet - alt.suicideholiday.net is a brilliant and provocative short film about internet forums on suicide, obviously based on and named after ash. Also, the user/IP who started the deletion procedure has contributed mainly POV vandalisms. Not sure if this is at all serious. Bz2 21:45, 16 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.