Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usage.english

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 — caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 15:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alt.usage.english (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Another non-notable newsgroup. No reliable third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Chirps•Clams•Chowder)} 01:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If one uses WP:WEB as the standard, this article does not pass. USENET groups are not much more than the predecessors of the web-based forums of today, and by and large those sites don't pass WP:WEB. The mass of Google hits are nearly all from archive sites that mirror USENET groups, or individual posts from the subject group. Neither are considered reliable sources. Google Groups is just Google's own USENET newsfeed. DarkAudit (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable per WP:WEB. No third-party coverage by reliable sources mentioned in the article and very little to be found elsewhere. GoogleNews gives a grand total of 10 hits[1], that all appear to be passing mentions. Nsk92 (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Weak Delete for the moment, per Dhartung's comment below. In fact, the GoogleBooks results are not that bad, 43 hits[2]. However, it is true that they all seem to be passing mentions. Still, one should probably dig a little deeper here, as this subject might in fact be notable. Nsk92 (talk) 02:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, reluctantly. I would have expected it to be demonstrably notable, but apparently not. Only trivial mentions in Google Books. On the other hand, the redlinked sci.lang just might be able to pass muster based on more plentiful and substantial sources. --Dhartung | Talk 02:04, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See this Google News archive search. --Eastmain (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Those examples are citing the group's FAQ as background for another article, not features on the newsgroup itself. DarkAudit (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:WEB. Another little-known newsgroup with few to no links outside of message archives. -Dempkovitch (talk) 02:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep a widely used site at the time -- its rrather hard to find formal sources for alt groups. They got very little mainstream attention while they existed. DGG (talk) 07:22, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEB Article mentions how the newsgroup is filled with off-topic garbage. Radioinfoguy (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:WEB --T-rex 15:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While most newsgroups are not notable, this one is an exception. It's widely cited in academic literature"alt.usage.english" and referenced in books"alt.usage.english" and news articles[3]. Pburka (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. While there are tens of thousands of newsgroups, particularly in the "alt" category, this one is more like an experts' mailing list. Recommend the article be fleshed out with a few examples of its use in academia and the news. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. I can't get the links to work, but when I copied and pasted the one to Google Scholar, I think it shows that the newsgroup itself and the associated archives (such as Bob Cunningham's sound files) are notable. I agree with Squidfryerchef that the article needs some citations showing that. As a frequent participant in a.u.e. and a contributor to the article (full disclosure), I can't agree that it's like an experts' mailing list, though. And I certainly can't agree with DGG's use of the past tense. —JerryFriedman (Talk) 20:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:02, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 21:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep. Sources are light, but per others above, they exist. Meeting WP:N with them looks hard (not mainly about the topic). That said, I think we should do better with old usenet groups here. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pburka. (Full disclosure: I contributed much to the article and, formerly, participated in a.u.e.)—msh210℠ 17:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.