Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uk.media.tv.misc

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 delete. --Coredesat 07:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Uk.media.tv.misc

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

Non-notable newsgroup. Fails WP:WEB. 258 ghits [1], mainly groups.google and forums. A strong case of WP:AUTO and WP:COI. see here. -- IslaySolomon | talk 16:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. UMTM is a newsgroup, not a website, so I'm unsure if WP:WEB is strictly applicable. However, I note item 3;

UMTM is re-distributed through Google Groups.

Also, this group sees a significant amount of non-spam traffic, comparable to other newsgroups with wikipedia articles. --Billpg 16:43, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Google Groups does not qualify. it is just a simple unfiltered web interface to the raw newsgroups themselves (all of them - reaching back to the early 80s). Since it feeds all newsgroups equally, it cannot be used to determine if a newsgroup is unique or notable enough to rise above the noise and be listed here. The WP:WEB bullet you posted intended for things like flash animations, podcasts and other media that is plucked from the teeming mass of available media and re-broadcast by respected sources. (moved my comment so the discussion flows better - the multiple : used in the previous comment confused me) - CosmicPenguin (Talk) 21:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Usenet newsgroups don't get articles by default; they have to be notable somehow. This one isn't. --Aaron 16:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see notability. Deli nk 18:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. An encyclopedia should be objective. A very subjective decision is being made here about "notability". There is clearly meaningful traffic on the NG and a definite "community" of regular posters. Either allow this, or allow none. MurunB 20:17, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This comment deleted by poster.Wow fab groovy 12.35, 19 October 2006 (BST)
  • Notability isn't subjective. Does it satisfy WP:WEB? — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not a notable newsgroup, and I have posted there. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 21:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Popularity within its own community does not a notable subject make. (little bit of Yoda there). I am active in several forums, for example ones regarding computer games I regularly play. Some of them are VERY active for game forums, with thousands of active members. Notability, however, can only be established from OUTSIDE of the subject in question. Have people who DON'T contribute note and reference this newsgroup? Are there verifiable, reputable, third party sources that can attest to its notability? If not, then the subject is not notable. --Jayron32 04:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I read the group and occasionally post. I agree totally with the points made by Jayron32. Arganoid 21:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. U.m.t.m is one of my regular newsgroups and creating the page was a bit of fun, but I'm not sure it really adds anything. mh. 18:26, 18 October 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.