Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/B1FF

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] B1FF

B1FF (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - !Collect 12:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. There are a few Google book hits for 'biff usenet', but there's probably not enough to demonstrate notability, nor is there much scope for expansion. Jakew 12:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. Some notability. I heard of B1FF/Biff from the Jargon File and came here looking for more information (not that there is much.) Significant as a precurosor to 'l33t' culture and so on. Robin Johnson (talk) 13:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak delete Does seem to have a sliver of notability as one of the first 'net "memes", but the article is poor (mostly just a giant ASCII signature) and I can't find reliable sources: There are plenty of News and Books results for "B1FF", but they appear to be random strings or coincidental/accidental usage, such as a 1968 newspaper where it appears in the classied ads, apparently an abbreviation for something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - Please see Notable_Usenet_personalities#Unusual_personalities for a Wiki reference on B1FF. No need to create an extra article on him/her/it... whatever... 1redrun Talk 13:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment - that list has also been nominated for deletion on this deletion-spree. I would also note that a topic is allowed to be included on a list and in its own article. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep per Robin Johnson. A potential reliable source. Sadly it's pay-per-view so I can't tell whether the "biff" mentioned within the article is the one we're talking about here. A less reliable source but 10k hits is nothing to sneeze at. —David Eppstein 16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep along the same lines as Robin Johnson. Remember Usenet? The original repository of information that anyone could edit? The B1FF phenomenon began when the Internet was still largely the domain of academic institutions, and the September horde of brand-new users. The great breadth of coverage of B1FF supports the notability of this Internet phenomenon. The article could stand to be improved, maybe even merged with B1ff, the Internet argot. --Ssbohio 22:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • By the power of his big brother's VIC-20, Strong Keep. Very distinctive and well-known, massive coverage over the years, everyone knows who B1FF was. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a notable meme in Internet folklore and is sourceable. "B1FF" has an entry in The New Hacker's Dictionary by Eric S. Raymond, which was published by MIT Press. "B1FF" even got an entry in the Microsoft Internet & Networking Dictionary [1] albeit with a slightly different meaning. --Metropolitan90 04:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per the above. These mass nominations by someone who apparently has great pride in deleting articles are getting disruptive. Tarc 13:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Comment - it appears this editor has already been on one deletion spree (although perhaps that one was justified) regarding non-notable pornographic actresses/actors. While I might agree that every single porn actor (like regular actors) does not require a page, these Usenet articles are not indiscriminate lists of users or fanpages/advertising for pornstars. It was even mentioned in some of those AfDs, despite the fact that they went through, that this user appeared to be trying to make a point or something. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
There is a source in the article, and it is notable. Your blanket minor-flagged boilerplate responses to several peoples' votes are disruptive and rather disingenuous. Tarc 15:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:CIVIL. The Jargon File isn't reliable. Epbr123 15:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Take your own advice, and yes, it is. The Jargon File has been around for over 30 years, it is not some random newbie fan site. This is the problem that I and others have with your mass nominations, is that you appear to have a fundamental lack of knowledge regarding Usenet and its history. Anyone that knows anything about this area of computing history would not be nominating this, Joel Furr or Serdar Argic for deletions, as they eould be well aware of their respective notability. Tarc 15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how old it is, it's still unreliable. Epbr123 15:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
You are wrong. No other way to put it. Tarc 16:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
So in 30 years, Wikipedia will be a reliable source? Epbr123 16:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Apples & Oranges. Tarc 17:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The idea that usenet phenomena aren't notable as a class does not hold water. B1FF is one of the notable ones. B1FF even is documented in print. Georgewilliamherbert 00:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    This is simply not true. A), Usenet is a reliable source for Usenet. B), the Jargon file entries for this were published as the Hackers Dictionary by ESR, so it's in paper print form. C) The statement that lack of reliable sources makes something non-notable is ludicrous. Notability and verifyability are orthogonal. If we did have a problem reliably verifying anything at all, then that might be a reason to question having an article, but A and B above indicate that this is not unreliably sourced. Epbr123's nomination and comments here are unreasonable and unsupported. Georgewilliamherbert 23:53, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fys, Metro90, etc. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    No reliable sources, therefore non-notable. An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 09:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    I have three responses to this: (1) Please consider everyone's vote individually, instead of blanketing the page with duplicate responses. (2) Do not mark such edits as minor. Doing so could easily be interpreted as an underhanded attempt to discredit someone's vote and have them not notice. (3) I could just as easily (if not more easily) claim that your nomination of a dozen of these related pages (in a way that disrupts Wikipedia and does not conform to AfD standards) is an IDONTLIKEIT move. --Cheeser1 13:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - This user is being very underhanded in this deletion spree - when a set of related articles is nominated for deletion in this fashion, their AfD is supposed to be combined. Instead, we're dealing with a slew of AfDs (which mostly appear to be going leaning towards keep), and if a few slip through the cracks and get deleted, it will be because of this senseless barrage of new AfDs. See: here. --Cheeser1 06:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep The nominator's continuing to spam nearly every comment with "No reliable sources" after two have been presented by Metropolitan90 above makes it very difficult for me to assume good faith. DHowell 03:28, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with DHowell. --Martin Wisse 11:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I agree that Usenet may be a reliable source for Usenet, but I don't buy that Usenet is a reliable source for notability. RFerreira 19:40, 9 September 2007 (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.