Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 August 27: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:51, 1 September 2006

< August 26	August 28 >

Full reviews may be found in this page history. For a summary, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 August)

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 Please notify the administrator who performed the action that you wish to be reviewed by leaving {{subst:DRVNote|page name}} on their talk page.
 -->
-====rec.sport.football.college====
-: ''Note. I have now restored [[Talk:Rec.sport.football.college]] and added to it two versions of the article. Also in the deleted history is a long article by [[user:Drjudsjr]] discussing the sociology of the group. It is assumed that the contributors below are referring to the short version of the article. (I was asked to comment on my speedy deletion. Given the evidence, I consider I was toally justified in deleting it as "repost")'' -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-deletion of [[rec.sport.football.college]] should be reviewed as it was deleted to hastily.  The deletion discussion of this page was not very complete and attempts to improve the content of this article are being twarted by repeated deletion.
-Rec.sport.football.college is one of the longest running USENET groups and set itself appart from the thousands of other groups not only because of it's longevity but because of the culture that has developed in the group itself as well as it's reflection of collegiate cultures as well as southern cultures.  It is truely a diverse discussion group with a long history that could be well covered in Wikipedia if administrators would allow it.
-Personal feelings and rivalries should not contribute to whether an article is deleted or not. -- [[User:Rtphokie|Rtphokie]] 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' This group has contributed to the life and culture of the Internet in a number of ways. The original deleted article was poorly written, but a new article was being created when the page was deleted. It's really annoying when someone tries to make a [[WP:AGF|good faith]] effort to fix a problem article only to have someone else wipe their work out. --[[User:Wnalyd|D Wilbanks]] 03:50, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-*Deletion at AFD is not automatically a ban on creation of a new article on the same topic and unless your article was substantially identical to the one deleted at AFD, it should not have been speedied. However, that said, are there any [[WP:V|verifiable]] sources of information about the group? I can't imagine an article on a newsgroup being very useful. [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 03:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-**If I start again, it will be the third time in 24 hours the article will have been recreated. And that's starting to drive me nuts. Right now, we're working on digging out every verifiable source we can find. The article was substantially different from the version sent to AFD -- that version was [[WP:OR|original research]]. I was in the process of reworking the article when it got deleted. As for whether articles about newsgroups are useful or not, a number them have articles, e.g. [[Alt.sex.stories]] and [[Alt.tv.game-shows]]. --[[User:Wnalyd|D Wilbanks]] 04:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-***Suggestion: work on it in someone's user space.  That way it is safely away from a speedy deletion.  Seek input from [[WP:CFB]]. When it is done and filled with verifiable sources, move it to article space.  [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-***An interesting suggestion, but why should this be necessary?  This can be of interest to non-college football fans.  It reflects a culture.  I've never seen something so non-controversial deleted so quickly.  [[User:rtphokie|rtphokie]] 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-**sources?  We could start with what I'd venture to say is one of the oldest continually maintained pages on the internet: [http://homepages.cae.wisc.edu/~dwilson/rsfc/ this page].  It has a treasure trove of history, records, and information about college football.  Much of that information was culled from the RSFC newsgroup.  [http://www.rsfckers.com/ this other page] chronicals the lighter side of the newsgroup including the yearly "RUTSies" contest, a parody award system which is entertaining but also sees college athletics in the harsh light of reality.  RSFC reflects life on Saturdays in much of the United States, particularly in the south.  While I agree that are USENET news groups with wikipedia entries that add nothing to the overall content of Wikipedia, this isn't one of them. How can we provide useful content if it keeps getting deleted?  [[User:rtphokie|rtphokie]] 04:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-***While those are interesting ... keep in mind, if it doesn't have non-self-generated sources, it isn't likely to survive an AFD. By the way, GO HOKIES! [[User:BigDT|BigDT]] 04:23, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-***Self generated or not, those sources are refernced by many, particularly the first one (which is referenced by numerous other sources inside of college football, college athletics, sports and in general).  I assume that what the administrators want to see here is that recognition of the subject of the article extending outside that subject's sphere of influence.  RSFC  is referenced in Wikipedia itself in the article on [Woofing] which itself is referenced as an African American topic.  Are you going to find an article in Newsweek about RSFC, probably not, will you find it referenced in blogs, discussion boards, and even here in other Wikipedia articles?  Yes.  Isn't that the purpose of Wikipedia, to provide a hyperlinked path of information on a wide variety of topics  [[User:rtphokie|rtphokie]] 04:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-***A quick comparison with other newsgroups that are included in the WIKIPEDIA shows notability insomuch as Rec.sport.college.football has very high user volume virtually all generated spam free without moderation.  The unique sub culture that has developed includes almost an entirely separate language.  The contributors include persons of notoriety in the public at various levels.  Many users are individually cited in their fields of notoriety and the newsgroup content has been sourced elsewhere several times.  While the source links that are included to support the newsgroups inclusion may be self generated by the users this is actually a defense of the uniqueness of this group in that the same sources have been cited elsewhere on the Wikipedia.
-*'''Weak keep deleted'''. Does not really establish why it is more notable than hundreds of other newsgroups. There are more than enough edit wars in Wikipedia without inviting an edit war over this newsgroup. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 06:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Comment:''' I'd like to know by what criteria we should judge articles on Usenet groups, and whether we should have such articles at all.  Many have thousands of participants (more than the average deleted webforum) but often lack even the possibility of external sources, since even the homepages wich are occasionally set up for such groups are entirely self-referential. I don't know how we can cover Usenet groups. [[User Talk:JzG|Just zis <span style="border: 1px; border-style:solid; padding:0px 2px 2px 2px; color:white; background-color:darkblue; font-weight:bold">Guy</span> you know?]] 17:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-:Well I do know that off-Usenet, published sources do exist for some newsgroups (usually but not always the most popular ones). In those cases, where there's been meaningful coverage and even academic studies... I think there's a strong argument for inclusion. Some examples of the coverage I am talking about: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rec.humor&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Search], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=alt.sex.stories&btnG=Search], [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?num=100&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=talk.origins&btnG=Search] just off the top of my head. I am going to need to review this specific article further... --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:43, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''weak keep deleted''' on the particular version that was deleted. I have looked at it and it does not assert importance, or any kind of independent, off-usenet coverage. However, my gut feeling is that an inclusion-worthy article probably could be written on this group. I might try to do so myself at some point. But if there are no off-usenet sources to be found on why the group is so important... sorry, Wikipedia isn't really the place to do original studies like that. --[[User:W.marsh|W.marsh]] 18:51, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-**If you were to write an article yourself, what would you include?  Would you include the sociology information in the original article? Also, I'd like to understand why [[Rec.sport.pro-wrestling]] is also not subject to deletion and is even protected from further edits.  How is it different from [[rec.sport.football.college]] or a USENET group like [[Rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated]] which is notable in it's popularity and the fact that it receives contributions from regular people as well as people known off-usenet (I was starting this section the last time this article was deleted)?  What in this article asserts importants of coverage of the topic outside of USENET?  [[Rec.sport.soccer]], [[Talk.bizarre]], [[Rec.arts.tv.mst3k.misc]], [[Talk.origins]], [[Alt.sex]], [[Rec.arts.tv.soaps.cbs]] and many many others were created for an by regulars to these USENET groups and are of no value to anyone else. These are all a dictionary entries at best and vanity at worst yet they remain here.  Something like [[Alt.atheism]] identify the existence of a USENET group for a topic which is already well covered by USENET and offers nothing on it's own.  I guess what I'm looking for is a definition of the standards used in determining which USENET newsgroups are worthy and which aren't. [[User:Rtphokie|Rtphokie]] 12:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-***Some of them have claims of notability outside of just existing and having a lot of posts. The Babylon 5 newsgroup, for instance, included the creator of the show, and the newsgroup feedback actually affected the show's developement. I agree with you that some of those newsgroups probably should not have articles however, if there's no evidence that they have relevence outside the forum itself. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] <sup>[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Weak keep deleted'''. I deleted this twice per a recent [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.sport.football.college|AfD]]. I also did not see any claim of notability other than that lots of people post. I'm not convinced that 10000 posts/month = notability. If there was evidence that this newsgroup actually affected college football in some way, then I would say keep. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] <sup>[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 14:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''Overturn''' The deletion was arbitrary and unnecessarily speedy - and the comments supporting deletion attempt to substitute repetition for actual argument, as with the previous one. --[[User:Mdahmus|Mdahmus]] 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-**''User's first edit since Feb 17, 14th ever edit''. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] <sup>[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 14:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
-***I don't see how this is germane to this conversation. I would like you to strike it. --[[User:Wnalyd|D Wilbanks]] 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-****It's relevant because it bespeaks of possible sockpuppets. And it helps the closing admin determine consenus. --[[User:Fang Aili|Fang Aili]] <sup>[[User talk:Fang Aili|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 13:23, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
-*****[[User:Mdahmus|Mdahmus]] is not a sockpuppet; in saying he's made 14 edits and none since February, you're actually confirming that. I do not like these little lines people throw in with how many edits people have made because it reinforces the idea that the mega-editors own the site despite what people with comparatively few edits have to say. I've made 121 edits. Does what I say have little value compared to you because you have thousands and thousands of edits? I find this practice discriminatory. Sure, if this is someone's first ever edit, note it, but 14 suggests that [[User:Mdahmus|Mdahmus]] has contributed enough to  have a voice here. --[[User:Wnalyd|D Wilbanks]] 00:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
-*'''undelete''' this newsgroup is a major part of internet culture [[User:Yuckfoo|Yuckfoo]] 00:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)