Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 04:31, 1 March 2023

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. CitiCat 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notable Usenet personalities

Notable Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Unsourced and non-notable list. Epbr123 11:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep delete I believe it some entries can be well referenced. However, i am not sure if all of the people/pseudonyms listed are notable enough. -- GarbageCollection - 11:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment WP:N says that a summary article like this is the place to talk about people not notable enough for their own articles. "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." Jeh 20:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete When an article is a giant list and its only reference is to a school newspaper, that's a bad sign. Besides, this is redundant with Category:Usenet people. I suggest that before deletion it should be combed through for A7/AfD candidates--virtually everyone listed is completely non-notable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as above, so below, although as an annotated list, it's better reading than a cold, plain category. --Agamemnon2 12:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. Improve the article with references, don't delete it. Epbr1 has been on an AFD rampage today for "non-notable (to him) Usenet personalities", and the first two responders here have been following him around rubber-stamping these AFDs for the most part. If Gharlane is not a notable Usenet personality then no one is! I believe this is disruptive behavior on wikipedia and should be looked into by admins. Jeh 16:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Entries are unsourced, and given the subject matter, this is a WP:BLP nightmare just waiting to happen. Xihr 19:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep with a bit of cleanup. Needs to remove the POV-ish qualifiers ("eccentric", "unusual") being given to people. Ad more references. Tarc 13:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - IDONTLIKE nom is no reason to delete it. Claiming that Usenet is not notable and its phenomena aren't notable is ludicrous. Georgewilliamherbert 00:29, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • An ILIKEIT !vote. Epbr123 16:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • This is NOT an ILIKEIT vote. Stop labeling every vote that disagrees with you as ILIKEIT. This vote EXPLICITLY states that (according to this user) the subject meets WP:N, which should be obvious (did you read the title? NOtable Usenet personalities?). --Cheeser1 17:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - list, with exposition, of several related personalities. Would not be superceeded by category. Entries in list seem relatively notable, and some even link to well-sourced articles (the sourcing issue is a red-herring - it's a list, and many entries are already sourced in their respective article). --Cheeser1 06:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the goal of this is just a list, rather then content within it, I think it would be much better suited as a category. Xihr 06:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • No, a list and a category are vastly different in Misplaced Pages. This list is sorted, and contains a fair amount of exposition, not to mention many entries that do not correspond to their own article. It cannot be downgraded to a category without losing alot. --Cheeser1 01:24, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment. I disagree. The person I was responding to suggested that this article had links to well-sourced, useful articles. That in and of itself indicates that the list does not serve any obvious useful purpose beyond a category. Xihr 07:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Comment But (I will say again) WP:N says that a summary article like this is the place to talk about people not notable enough for their own articles. "If appropriate sources cannot be found, if possible, merge the article into a broader article providing context." A category can't include entries that have no articles; a list article can (as well as including entries that do have articles). I say again: Improve, don't delete. Jeh 16:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine personalities listed on this page, and of this page itself, seems to me to be contrary to the multiple deletion procedure. The purpose of that procedure is to allow reviewers to see and evaluate the collection of AFDs as a whole. That is not possible here because Epbr123 listed all of these AFDs separately. We therefore cannot have proper context for this discussion. Jeh 16:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. I agree wholeheartedly, and hope the appropriate admins take this into account. I personally think this article is better suited as a category, but simultaneous AfDs for the list and its (article) items without comment strikes me as inappropriate. Xihr 07:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - most of the entries are notable and are sourced in their own articles. Useful reference list. Gandalf61 19:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I think Gendalf61 sums it up nicely for this page. Even if not all are well-sourced or not-sourced-in-this-article, many are sourced. Nuking the article isn't the solution for that. I also object on procedural grounds for all the unbundled AfDs...looks like gaming the system (get enough support for any one page not being viable in a vacuum (without even proposing a merger!), then others that are inter- or intimately-related become less viable without it). DMacks 14:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Too much unsourced information in probable violation of WP:BLP. Also: trivial. If the result is "keep," then all entries on the list that do not have a corresponding article should be deleted from the list. BCST2001 22:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - criteria for being one's own article and criteria for being in an article (or in this case, list) are not the same. See here. --Cheeser1 00:02, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • They still need to be sourced though. Epbr123 00:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
      • That is not the point. WP:RS does not provide for deletion if an article or list might benefit from more sources. Not only did you completely skip alternatives for deletion, but you aren't even arguing based on a deletion criterion. If you thought it needed more or better references, you should have tagged it with {refimprove}, not AfD'd it. WP:N is what must be met, and I can't think of anything that meets WP:N better than an article that is explicitly structured as a list of notable people. The fact that some of them do not have their own article is irrelevant to WP:N (as I've pointed out), and has nothing to do with this nomination. --Cheeser1 00:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Keep so we can all waste more time on a 2nd motion to remove, and, also, keep because

the world thus knows Uncle A"I" is a computer program with John Baez. Note the AL is really Ai for artivical intelligensia. 216.16.56.201 07:57, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep as per Gandalf61. Good starting article, even if sources need to be improved. --Martin Wisse 09:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and rename to "Usenet personalities" or "List of Usenet personalities". RFerreira 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Why did you move this article without discussing it? The fact that you suggested it here on the AfD does not give you permission to immediately move it. If you made this suggestion as part of the AfD, you should at least wait until the AfD is over. I have moved it back. I would strongly suggest that you wait for the AfD to end, and in general, refrain from instituting such suggestions until others have had a chance to comment on them. This article is obviously the subject of scrutiny and disagreement - making such a move without forming consensus suggests that somehow you thought it would be complete uncontested, which I believe is a completely unreasonable assumption. Please take care not to make moves that one can be certain would be contested. See WP:RM. --Cheeser1 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Drinikeep -- drini 02:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - great article, lacking in sources but that can be remedied. Really fundamental to Usenet culture. — xDanielx /_C 09:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Silly unsourced triva. No logical rules for inclusion or exclusion in article; anyone who shows up on a Google search could be listed here.--Paul 21:52, 11 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.