Contents

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alt.usenet.kooks (3rd nomination)

Alt.usenet.kooks[edit]

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

There are a number of problems with this article. It has existed since May 2005 and still does not have a single reliable third-party source. It's been tagged as needing additional citations for nearly one full year.

I did a couple of searches to see if I could find any material to improve the article. However, results were not promising. Google Books found only one relevant work, plus one or two passing mentions and one book whose content is marked as restricted. A regular Google search shows lots of hits, but I didn't see a single one that I would consider to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. Google Scholar has one single mention that simply says it was one of the most popular Usenet groups (a second hit is from a 1955 article and obviously an inaccurate match). JSTOR does not have any matches. I don't think there is enough material here or anywhere else to meet Wikipedia standards for verifiability while avoiding original research.

There's another major problem with the article as it now stands, namely WP:BLP. The article repeats mentions of the "awards" various individuals have won. Only primary sources are cited for these award assertions; a few "winners" are mentioned in the book I cited above, but, by and large, they aren't the same ones currently listed on the page. The page as it stands basically repeats non-notable Usenet smears against living people. *** Crotalus *** 03:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, with particular emphasis on the WP:BLP concerns involved with identifying people as "kooks" based on relatively obscure Usenet-based polls. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for same reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.220.146 (talk) 05:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Notable Usenet personalities, as discussing certain of them was the primary purpose of the newsgroup. --Dhartung | Talk 10:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looks like it's had a loooong time to get some decent sourcing, and if it hasn't happened in an entire year of being tagged there's little reason to believe it will ever happen. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - ain't gonna get any better, it seems —Preceding unsigned comment added by Orangemike (talk • contribs) 17:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments:

1) This appears to be the THIRD nomination, not the second: User:Crotalus horridus, according to the edit history, overwrote the existing 2nd nomination page.[1]

2) If deletion is the result, I'd like to request that the page be moved to my userpage so I can take a crack at it. I don't really have time right now -- hell, I really shouldn't even be typing THIS -- but hopefully I can do something soon. --Calton | Talk 01:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Here's a better view of the second AfD, in October 2006 (the first was in December 2005). -- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I nominated the article using Twinkle, which apparently didn't properly sort it. I will try to manually fix this when the nomination is over (I don't want to be renaming and moving these pages while they're still being edited.) As to Calton's comment, I have no objection to keeping it in userspace, with one caveat: the names of "award winners" must be removed as a WP:BLP violation. I have substantial doubt that he will be able to improve it with reliable sources, though, as per the statements in my nomination. I looked; the sources just don't exist. *** Crotalus *** 18:54, 7 February 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.