Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lumber Cartel (second 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 Keep. --JoanneB 18:50, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lumber Cartel

A DRV consensus overturned a previous "Speedy Keep" closure on this article. This matter is resubmitted to AfD for new consideration. This is a procedural relisting, so I abstain. Xoloz 16:34, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment To nitpick, Wikipedia:Deletion review does not produce consensus. It's a vote. --Tony Sidaway 17:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To nitpick further, it is only a vote with respect to the question of overturning/relisting, ie. whether further discussion is required. To do anything else, it requires typical consensus. By definition, on the first question only (of overturning vs. endorsing), a DRV consensus does equal a simple majority, and -- in that limited purpose -- the terms are interchangeable. "Consensus" is not incorrect, however. Xoloz 18:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as before. Notable. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neutral - Nothing but speculation, conspiracy theory and accusations made on the back of uncredible sources. Not a terribly notable topic and the entry it has in the Jargon File is probably all its worth at this point. 3rd result [1] is this article, the search results contain mostly their websites, copies of the jargon file, mirrors of wikipedia and things like the free online dictionary. Given the removal of unsourced information I'm satisfied that it passes verifiabilty, but I'm not convinced that its at all notable outside a small group on usenet. Find the references outside usenet to be trivial and dubious at best. However so long as the article remains within the realms of verifibility, I'll stay neutral on the matter.--Crossmr 16:37, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep As before. There are real life articles in reputable sources that refer to the "lumber cartel" in this context [2] [3]. It's reasonable to assume that someone interested in organised anti-spamming efforts in the late 1990s may read the name and wonder what it's all about. This article is what they should come to. --Tony Sidaway 16:44, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  as we pointed out before. The Wired article isn't credible per their management, and the Salon article isn't an article on the Lumber cartel. Its simply mentioned in passing and other then stating that they spoke out against the DMA, contains no other usable information in relation to this group. Simply establishing existence by a credible source does not give license to use whatever source you want to present facts about that subject.--Crossmr 16:47, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • The Wired article requests information: if there were a real problem the article would surely have been pulled. The Salon article devotes an entire paragraph in a not-particularly-long article to the "Lumber Cartel", hardly a mere "mention-in-passing". Your querulous attempts to forbid the use of Usenet messages as evidence of their own contents (which is the real situation here: we're not using that content as further evidence of anything else; that argument lies elsewhere) is becoming tedious. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    1 paragraph out of 3 pages? There are a total of 32 paragraphs in the article (some are longer some are shoter), which means its got a grand total of about 3% of the article. That is trivial, even if its not trivial, it establishes nothing other than the fact that a group called themselves that and had those opinions. The wired article does ask for information, but doesn't say whether or not that article was one they couldn't find sources for. However the fact that they're asking for sources in relation to that article does indicate they had trouble with the sources on it. They don't specify what they need sources on, or what the problem is, but it does taint the article and make it a dubious source.--Crossmr 17:20, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• I reiterate my keep vote on this one. DS 16:45, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. References in Wired and Salon establish notability. Google Groups provides verifiability. (In WP:RS jargon, I assert that Google Groups is a reliable publisher of a primary source.) —Caesura^(t) 16:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  So you're saying google groups provides editorial over-sight?--Crossmr 17:00, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  No, he's saying it's a primary source. --Tony Sidaway 17:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Of which its not credible, as always, anyone can and does write anything with anonymity which the Vladimir quote attests to. No idea who Vladimir is, the website is no longer there to verify what he claims. You might as have found the information scrawled on a napkin in the ditch.--Crossmr 17:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  • No, and you keep misunderstanding this (which makes one wonder if it's deliberate): Google Groups presents as an accurate archive of the messages which were posted to Usenet. The issue here is whether particular messages contained particular text: whether that text itself contains accurate information is another layer of verifiability altogether. The analogy could be drawn with messages in a foreign language: there's a step between ensuring that you have the correct message in the original language and ensuring that you have an accurate translation. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

    I'm not questioning the accuracy of the archive. I'm questioning the accuracy of the original posts. Using them from google groups would be no different than using them from usenet. Since google does nothing other than package them up, there is no difference. Prior to this debate WP:RS read that usenet posts were not to be used as primary or secondary sources (the wording has since been changed by someone involved in this debate) and since google groups doesn't do anything to the posts, its no different than usenet. This article does more than say "People talked about the lumber cartel on usenet". It goes on to make accusations against individuals based on "facts" provided in those posts. There is a world of difference there.--Crossmr 17:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per previous arguments, both above and on previous nomination. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 17:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in its present form. I've raised important issues on the talk page which remain unanswered. It is not clear whether this is an article about 1) the Lumber Cartel or 2) about Usenet chitter chatter. If the former, then Usenet is not an acceptable source. If the latter then Usenet can be used as to show Usenet rumour, without any implication that it's fact. At the moment it is claimed that it is about 2) but in fact that material is used to substantiate 1) in complete violation of VERIFY. Thus Duane Patterson is implicated on the basis that someone on a google group said that he was sent something by his General Manager who got it from a wannabe spammer who got it from Duane Patterson. This would be laughable, were it not being used seriously as verification.Tyrenius 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  You're right That's original research based on hearsay. I've removed the reference to Patterson and hope you'll reconsider. --Tony Sidaway 17:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep (changed) as long as my deletion of Sanford Wallace is not reinstated. Again it is a third party mentioned purely on the basis of a Usenet post. They might actually take umbrage over this. Even if not, to say it is "sourced" gives the indication of certain verification, which is not the case. Tyrenius 18:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as in previous nomination and deletion review discussion. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:25, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Without even reading the article I know this is about Sanford Wallace saying e-mail spam is going to save the forests and therefore the "lumber cartel" is plotting to put him out of business. The term, as used by Sanford Wallace, is a piece of computing history and it is still in common use on a major internet discussion forum (nanae). SchmuckyTheCat 17:58, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

  Well, it's not 100% confirmed that it was Sanford Wallace. But yeah. DS 18:06, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Tony Sidaway's comments above. Scorpiondollprincess 19:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per ESkog and as before. 1ne 20:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral It's still a non-notable Usenet in joke in my opinion, notable only to those who already know what it is via participation in Usenet. However, the other problems are at least being addressed now, so if someone agrees to watch it and keep it a good article about an unworthy topic, then I suppose that's at least a fair compromise. GassyGuy 22:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Very weak keep The coverage in the sources provided is really scraping the bottom of the barrel V-wise, but it still appears marginally valid. Ziggurat 01:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It answers an obvious 'huh?' and meets minimums. Shenme 04:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Good Lord Delete Wired News has been unable to confirm some sources for a number of stories written by this author. How long has this been under discussion??? And these are all the sources the keepers could come up with??? ~ trialsanderrors 04:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Actually, if you follow that link, you will see that they listed the specific articles by that author with which they had problems [4], and were open to expanding that list if they received any information which would lead them to conclude that any of her other articles were also problematic. The article in question is not one of them, and they continue to employ that writer as of last month [5]. Furthermore, she did name her specific sources in that article (Julian Haight of Spamcop, for instance), and they can be contacted. DS 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Actually my problem is with the fact that this is (among) the best the keepers can come up with. This article has been through process for quite some time, AfD, DRV and now AfD again, with ample keep voters, and all the sources it cites are five scraps? I see 2 homemade websites, 2 articles where LC is "mentioned", i.e. not the central subject of the article, and one article where the magazine itself disclaims reliability. For a subject that has gotten so much scrutiny here this is extremely puny, so much that the closing admin should delete it under WP:V no matter the outcome of the vote if not more sources can be dredged up. We're talking about a supposed internet phenomenon, and this is the full extent of coverage it received? ~ trialsanderrors 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Just to reiterate - the verifiability issues at Wired do not apply to that particular article. DS 17:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Of course they do. WP:RS clearly asks us to Find out what other people say about your sources. and Have they reported other facts reliably, including on different subjects? Cross-check with what you already know. Here even the magazine the article is published in pulls the rug from under the author. How much more blatant of a violation of WP:RS can you get? ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  It's a Usenet phenomenon - and that's just for 2005-2006. People are still talking about it. Although, of course, it does not exist. There is no Lumber Cartel. DS 17:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  and how many posts were made to usenet in that time? 5,130,000. Which gives a grand total of .6% of posts on usenet referencing the lumber cartel. Not exactly a notable phenomenon.--Crossmr 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  As a line of argument, this seems a little far-fetched. Nearly all international news items do not mention Microsoft. Does this mean Microsoft is not "notable"? The lumber cartel is a "notable" spoof within the anti-spam field. --Tony Sidaway 17:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  He put forth how many posts were made as some evidence of notability. I'm well within my right to call that into question. By your own admission this is only notable within a small group. Most notability guidelines read, that regardless of the subject require it to be the subject of multiple non-trivial articles, reports, etc. Its only non-trivial coverage is Wired, and even that is honestly trivial. While its mentioned in the opening its not really covered as the subject of the article. However if we allow for it to be non-trivial, the rest of the coverage is trivial and it wouldn't pass any kind of notability guidelines.--Crossmr 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  There's barely twice that amount of posts referencing Godwin's Law in that same period. 1.2% of all posts mention Godwin's Law. Is that notable? DS 17:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Godwin's law is also covered extensively outside of Usenet. It gets 340,000 google hits while Lumber Cartel gets 20,400. So yes, it is notable in comparison. Though I'll remind you that we're discussing this article, not Godwin's Law.--Crossmr 17:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  (Edit conflict) The argument about lack of verifiability is an absolute one, not a relative one. In absolute numbers (and in quality terms), Microsoft easily jumps verifiability/NPOV hurdles. This one, unless someone comes up with something, not. ~ trialsanderrors 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Have we settled on verifiability, then? Are we stuck on notability now? DS 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  I'm neutral on verifiability, though trialsanderrors sees WP:V issues. I certainly don't see notability here from anything you've shown, or I've pulled up on google search.--Crossmr 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  This is clearly a verifiability issue. Notability is a judgment call and established by consensus. Verifiability is a policy that overrides consensus. The test is simply can I, who have heard never of the term before, check the reliable sources in the article and verify that the term is used in the way it is presented? And as it is, the number of reliable sources that help me determine this is zero. ~ trialsanderrors 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  If you believe that your reasoning correctly reflects Wikipedia policy, you are misreading Wikipedia policy. We do not delete articles about known phenomena simply because someone is able to interpret Wikipedia policy in such a manner as to require an unattainable level of verifiability of those phenomena. --Tony Sidaway 19:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they must refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by reputable publishers. The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia. Editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors. I don't have to read any further. My interpretation is perfectly compatible with WP:V. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  "Compatible with Verifiability" is not the same as "reasonable". If you decide to required an unreasonable level of verifiability, your requirement is compatible with the Verifiability policy (or WP:V, as you prefer to cryptically refer to it) but it isn't helpful to Wikipedia. At question here is whether, when you discount well known internet phenomena on the basis of your personally selected criteria, you have set a reasonable level of verifiability. --Tony Sidaway 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  You are still not offering evidence on how my reasoning misinterprets policies. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  My evidence is your belief that the Lumber Cartel article must be deleted on the basis of the Verifiability policy. I could understand a "not important enough for an article argument", but that would suggest a merge to News.admin.net-abuse.email. Verifiability policy will not help you here, however. --Tony Sidaway 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  You don't seem to understand the meaning of evidence. I don't see a policy WP:What User Tony Sidaway Thinks or a policy WP:General handwaving. If my reasoning misinterprets policy, cite the passus of the policy it misinterprets. Fundamental verifiability issues are not solved by merging. It just moves unverified info somewhere else. ~ trialsanderrors 20:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

  Please remain civil. If you don't recognise when I'm citing Wikipedia's deletion policy, my apologies. "Such a minor branch of a subject that it doesn't deserve an article" has long been a subcategory in the list of "Problem articles where deletion may not be needed" in that policy. If there is a suitable article to merge to (I cited one such above) then we don't delete. The claims of verifiability problems strike me as somewhat shrill. --Tony Sidaway 12:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  In other words, no evidence that my comments misinterprets verifiability policy. WP:DP] might recommend merging, but merging does not solve verifiability problems and hence is only for sourced minor articles. Please strike your wholly inappropriate last comment. ~ trialsanderrors 17:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  We're obviously seeing things completely differently. I see no verifiability problems; indeed there is ample primary and secondary material to support provenance, period and usage. As I said earlier, if you think Wikipedia needs more verifiability than this then your interpretation of the Verifiability policy can be said, with a high degree of confidence, to be invalid. --Tony Sidaway 18:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

  I rest my case. User:Tony Sidaway has, after third request, still not offered a passus in WP:V that makes my interpretation "invalid". ~ trialsanderrors 18:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per the AfD on TINC. Usenet posts are acceptable as primary sources when referring to the content of Usenet posts themselves. We're discussing an argument on Usenet, about Usenet. Captainktainer * Talk 19:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Minor meme unknown outside the confines of antispam activism. Dr Zak 05:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as before. I commend WP:DRV for disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Mackensen (talk) 18:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and question, why is this article about a non-notable-at-all conspiracy theory/usenet joke and not about the almost-but-still-not-quite-notable anti-spam group who adopted the name? Either way I still think delete, but at least the group is a vaguely encyclopedic topic for an article. Recury 14:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Because the Lumber Cartel is pertinent to the history of Usenet, and the sources provided pertain to the Lumber Cartel meme. Captainktainer * Talk 15:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The article doesn't make any claims to that effect. It just says, to paraphrase, "It's a conspiracy theory that spammers came up with and then anti-spammers appropriated it to make fun of them." If it actually is pertinent to the history of Usenet (which, for the record, I don't buy) please update the article explaining why. Recury 16:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - It's a buzzword and a meme which hasn't seen any use outside of USENET for six years; One article it uses to establish notability has source disclaimers; Another smells of a olden-age scamsite with its flamboyant exclamation, flashing lights, long sidebars, and buzzword usage (Does it meet WP:EL?); And the last is, at most, a passing and aged reference. Applying WP:WEB to this, and just for the heck of it, WP:ORG... It satisifies neither. And, finally, "Who cares about the Lumber Cartel?" Does anyone at all outside of USENET care about the phrase? It hasn't become commonplace in anti-spam efforts, it hasn't been mentioned at all in a published article (Neither the WIRED or SALON articles appear to have been included in the respective print issue.)... It shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 16:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you actually read what Wired said about the reliability of articles by that author (who they still employ)? I actually contacted Julian Haight directly and asked him if he said that. He said yes. And yes, it's still common. There are more sources as well; but they've been removed from the article. DS 21:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep per above. Kotepho 18:02, 21 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.