| Revision as of 01:45, 6 March 2006 editA Man In Black (talk | contribs)38,430 edits →[]: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:22, 6 March 2006 edit undoCapitalistroadster (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users47,872 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| ****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) | |||
Revision as of 02:22, 6 March 2006
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? : ) — User:Adrian/zap2.js 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 :) — User:Adrian/zap2.js 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)