Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.atheism (2nd nomination)

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. I am personally not all that convinced that the sources found establish notability, but there does not appear to be a consensus to delete, since some participants have expressed that the newsgroup's high activity ought to be sufficient. (Whether or not I agree with it, the argument is not wholly unreasonable.) Since there appears to be no clear violation of verifiability or other core policies, I don't think it would be appropriate to overrule the discussion, so this defaults to keep. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Alt.atheism

Alt.atheism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

While the last AfD deemed this notable, there are still no sources to indicate this. The only claim to notability in this article (and the only reason in my mind it shouldn't be A7 speedied) is that it asserts it is one of the most active groups. However, there are no sources to corroborate this. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. No independent sources are provided. The group appears to be quite active [1] but that alone does not appear to establish notability. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Fascinatingly, the newsgroup seems to be chosen quite often for various computer science studies, such as parsing user names or determining the topic of a posting, but I'm having trouble finding actual discussion of it. --Dhartung | Talk 08:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Very weak delete. The newsgroup has been used for quite a number of CS-related experiments, but I'm extremely surprised at how difficult it is to turn up sources. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 10:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Being a high activity newsgroup and the source of the Invisible Pink Unicorn should be sufficient, I think. It's also important to remember that notability is not temporary. The World Wide Web came after Usenet and largely made it unnecessary, so I'm not surprised that you can't find a lot of web sources aside from trivial references. Wyatt Riot (talk) 13:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

While not temporary, it needs to have existed. There are no sources significantly covering this group, giving notability. Besides, it has verification problems as well. seresin ( ¡? ) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The possibility exists that any cites discussing this newsgroup predate the internet as it currently stands. Paper Cites may be the only ones available and thus, take longer to nail down. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 04:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

The last AfD was over seven months ago. There's been time. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a rush? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 08:27, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Weak keep per Wyatt Riot. There might be just enough to pass this one, especially given that the newsgroup is the origin of the Invisible Pink Unicorn™. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 16:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Atheism-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep It seems trivial to find sources which demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Most of those are directory listings or brief mentions, not granting notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

lots of brief mentions, as we have here, demonstrate notability. The sources also confirm that this is a high-traffic newsgroup which has threads which "never die". Colonel Warden (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Lots of trivial mentions do not grant notability. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:21, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ORG which states, If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability.. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

And the very next line: Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability seresin ( ¡? ) 17:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep per the sources provided by Warden. I hadn't thought to look in books. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 21:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep The sources listed are useful and can be used to expand the article. Gary King (talk) 19:11, 24 April 2008 (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.