Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 00:42, 13 April 2022 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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. No reliable independent sources to support his weak claim to fame, most opposes are procedural only. Fram 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

James Bottomley (Usenet innovator)

James Bottomley (Usenet innovator) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable Usenet personality. Epbr123 12:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as per nom. -- GarbageCollection - 12:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Speedy delete no claim to notability, no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 14:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. No, he was nothing. Fys. “Ta fys aym”. 00:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, the creation of soc.history.moderated is primarily of interest to soc.history.moderated users. It wasn't the first moderated newsgroup. Nor was there any one personality primarily behind opposition to Canter & Siegel. --Dhartung | Talk 04:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with Dhartung. The first moderated Usenet newsgroup seems to have been net.announce in 1983. (See here for evidence.) The soc.history.moderated newsgroup wasn't created until 1994. Thus, neither of the sources in this article holds up in terms of supporting the statements they refer to. --Metropolitan90 01:36, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Comment Then let's fix the article, not delete it. ALL of the w: pages concerning deletion procedures seem to strongly recommend that the first response to such an article should be to improve it. Jeh 04:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Note that one of the sources claimed for this article does not even mention the subject, and the claim it is trying to support ("highest Kibo number in Britain") is difficult to believe. (Someone who had never received an e-mail would have an infinite Kibo number. Bottomley more likely was one of many Britons with a Kibo number of 1 or 2.) --Metropolitan90 13:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Epbr123's recent AFDs of nine Usenet personalities listed on the Notable Usenet personalities page, and of that page as well, seems 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 16:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The entries weren't similar enough to be nominated in one AfD. This shows a lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. Epbr123 16:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I think it shows YOUR lack of understanding of the multiple deletion procedure. They are related in that their claim to notability derived at least partly from Usenet, and from the Notable Usenet personalities page... and you seem to have found them all from that page. Shouldn't voters for any of these pages be aware of the fact that you've nominated so many other related (in that way) pages in quick succession? I think they should. Jeh 17:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
      • It doesn't matter what their claim to fame is. Each one has to have been covered by reliable soutces; the vast majority haven't been. Epbr123 17:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
        • WP:RS does not demand deletion of poorly-sourced articles. --Cheeser1 05:27, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:POINT. Meets WP:V and seems to potentially meet WP:N. May need more/better sources, or an explicit pass of WP:N. Those are not reasons to swoop in and delete, but rather, reasons to tag the page and discuss it there, with established editors of this page. --Cheeser1 03:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

• ¿Qué? It's been tagged with {{unreferenced}} since July, and there are absolutely zero reliable sources listed. Extremely unclear on why you assert that WP:V is met. Nearly all available sources seem to be usenet posts and mailing list entries. Delete, MrZaius 08:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• comment Though I disagree with the deletion of all or most of these articles, the nominator was 100% right to nominate them separately--had they been nominated in a group, the proper & inevitable response would have been to ask him to renominate. The individuals have different accomplishments, and need to be judged accordingly. It is very likely that some of them are more notable or have better documentation than others. Every bio article stands on its own. DGG (talk) 03:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Response - this is incorrect. Articles on similar topics should be nominated together. The fact that their notability varies is immaterial - we can judge which to keep and which to delete altogether (the decision need not be all-or-none). See the relevant AfD procedure. --Cheeser1 04:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
• Keep important poster from semi-early days of Usenet, whose article needs fleshing out, not deleting. --Martin Wisse 10:37, 9 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.