| Revision as of 07:51, 29 March 2022 editMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 01:20, 21 December 2022 edit undoSheep8144402 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers33,719 editsm →[]: fix font tags using AWBTag: AWB | ||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
| *** Hi. I'm sorry to be difficult, but that's only the Alexa ranking for a ''news aggregator'' site. The actual ''newsgroup'' cannot be ranked via Alexa. ] is not a Web-based service :) — ] (]) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | *** Hi. I'm sorry to be difficult, but that's only the Alexa ranking for a ''news aggregator'' site. The actual ''newsgroup'' cannot be ranked via Alexa. ] is not a Web-based service :) — ] (]) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Keep'''. We seem to have many articles on these newsgroups at ] so I see no reason to remove this one. -- ] 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | * '''Keep'''. We seem to have many articles on these newsgroups at ] so I see no reason to remove this one. -- ] 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| **The difference between those newsgroups and this one is analogous to the difference between Something Awful and Joe's Off-Topic Discussion Forum. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | **The difference between those newsgroups and this one is analogous to the difference between Something Awful and Joe's Off-Topic Discussion Forum. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ***Uh, thanks, but I have no idea what you meant. -- ] 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ***Uh, thanks, but I have no idea what you meant. -- ] 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| ****Those are widely-discussed and/or historically important newsgroups. This one isn't. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ****Those are widely-discussed and/or historically important newsgroups. This one isn't. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete'''. This seems to be Yet Another Topicless Not-Particularly-Popular Forum. Forum vanity is forum vanity, be it Usenet or webforum. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. This seems to be Yet Another Topicless Not-Particularly-Popular Forum. Forum vanity is forum vanity, be it Usenet or webforum. - ] <small>(] | ])</small> 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' according to ]. There is no evidence presented of verifiable third party coverage for this newsgroup. ] 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' according to ]. There is no evidence presented of verifiable third party coverage for this newsgroup. ] 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''' per A Man In Bl?ck -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per A Man In Bl?ck -- ] <small>(] - ])</small> 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 01:20, 21 December 2022
- 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 of the debate was delete. Angr/talk
alt.fan.nb
Delete nn news site with alexa ranking>200,000 and article is full of the usual cruft and in jokes. Was prod but unproded. Current main topic is how to prevent deletion. Prepare to repel sock-puppets--Porturology 09:16, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: How did you derive an Alexa ranking for something that's not a Web site? : ) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 10:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- ranking for www.alt-news.net/alt.fan.nb--Porturology 11:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Hi. I'm sorry to be difficult, but that's only the Alexa ranking for a news aggregator site. The actual newsgroup cannot be ranked via Alexa. Usenet is not a Web-based service :) — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- ranking for www.alt-news.net/alt.fan.nb--Porturology 11:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. We seem to have many articles on these newsgroups at category:newsgroups so I see no reason to remove this one. -- JJay 19:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- The difference between those newsgroups and this one is analogous to the difference between Something Awful and Joe's Off-Topic Discussion Forum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, thanks, but I have no idea what you meant. -- JJay 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Those are widely-discussed and/or historically important newsgroups. This one isn't. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Uh, thanks, but I have no idea what you meant. -- JJay 01:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- The difference between those newsgroups and this one is analogous to the difference between Something Awful and Joe's Off-Topic Discussion Forum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. This seems to be Yet Another Topicless Not-Particularly-Popular Forum. Forum vanity is forum vanity, be it Usenet or webforum. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:30, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete according to WP:WEB. There is no evidence presented of verifiable third party coverage for this newsgroup. Capitalistroadster 02:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per A Man In Bl?ck -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 06:11, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Per above, nn -- Alpha269 16:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- - Note. Above account created today, participation limited to AfD. -- JJay 16:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, webcruft. Ned Wilbury 15:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, webcruft incog 21:27, 9 March 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.