Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/R.a.G.e

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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 no consensus, therefore keep moink 07:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] R.a.G.e

NN, D. ComCat 00:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• Keep based solely on the lack of justification given for its listing here. Use words, please. Bryan 06:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

"Non-notable" is a justification; "NN" is an common abbrev. Okay, nom text was ultra-terse, but that's not a reason to keep the article. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

I consider it to be a reason to vote against the nomination, though. If ComCat were to relist it with proper justification I wouldn't vote against it on that basis. Bryan 05:50, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, based on the article. --Apostrophe 14:56, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

• A defunct e-zine which was active only for three years. Not notable, delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:52, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• keep please this encyclopedia is not made from trees Yuckfoo 16:37, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, the article openly admits to being short lived and having a small following: non-notable, delete. -Splash 16:49, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete-Not notable enough for an encyclopedia. Also, as a sidebar, the author included this text at the bottom of the article which I feel is very anti-wiki- "This article has not been finished. Any additional information regarding R.a.G.e, including any origional articles are welcomed." Any comments? I have removed it for the time being. --Gpyoung ^talk 16:55, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have tagged it unreferenced. Not citing sources is not a sufficient cause for deletion; I often vote to delete unreferenced things because I worry they are hoaxes, but here I find no cause to think it's a hoax. Sdedeo 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No claims to notability. --A D Monroe III 19:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. An e-zine from 1992 is definitely notable. But this article definitely needs sources. Sdedeo 21:19, 3 September 2005 (UTC) (see below)
  • Delete, the contention that something is notable because it was on the Internet 13 years ago is specious. Please provide some documentation that its very existence = notability. Zoe 22:04, September 3, 2005 (UTC)
    • Hi Zoe. Thirteen years ago the internet was small, restricted mainly to official academic and government users and nothing like it is today. For the same reason that early artifacts of print culture are important, e-zines from the early era of the internet are too. I hope this helps. Sdedeo 22:12, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. So far I've only been able to find one reference from an old BBS called "NATTNAPPRAREN". By the time this zine was being published I had far removed myself from the HP scene, but Sdedeo makes a very convincing argument why this should be kept. History is important and bytes are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Argh. I put the tag "unsourced" on the article, and someone very quickly and helpfully put a link to the first issue of the e-zine. I checked it out, and the release date for rage turns out to be 1995. Furthermore, I was unable to find any later issues, and google (including google USENET) was unable to find anything about "Ruthless Anarchists Getting Even". IMO, 1995 is getting a bit late to be inherently notable. However, my residual affection for the subject matter means I cannot bring myself to vote as I should. Sdedeo 22:31, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep wikipedia is not paper, we dont have drive space constraints and if we'll keep made up pokemon characters, write 600+ words on a character mention only in passing in a harry potter novel, I see no reason this cant be kept. early h/p/a/v scene mags and such tended to be quite underground and as such wouldnt necessarily be spread all over the internet. 1995 makes this a post BBS cusp zine, may not be all over the net due to lack of spreading? I'm interested enough to want to know more.  ALKIVAR™ 23:29, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Whilst I respect your vote, the not-paper thing is costing us $200,000 dollars in fundraising at the moment... -Splash 23:57, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
    • No that 200,000$ is mostly going to bandwidth charges... not storage space. We have MORE than enough storage space. hell the EN wiki only takes up like 12 gigs.  ALKIVAR™ 01:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per A.D. Monroe III Nandesuka 02:07, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep interesting historical article. Crypticfirefly 04:47, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Hacker history is notable. A single-issue ezine is not. / Peter ^Isotalo 19:18, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete as per nom. Roodog2k (talk) 20:24, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
• delete, but add the information to list of zines. --Jacqui M Schedler 05:46, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Article does not provide/establish significance of subject (ie: was it published / mentioned in any notable magazine OR what impact does it have on other ezine OR any ezine derived from R.a.G.e). Historical article is not sufficient unless it provides insight as to why it is interesting. --Hurricane111 05:54, 10 September 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.