- 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 keep -Andrew c [talk] 02:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Non-notable internet discussion group. Fails WP:WEB, no assertion of notability. Spam. Hornet35 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article needs a lot of work, but the subject is probably notable, based upon the possible sources available (see Google Books and Google Scholar). Jakew 16:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Well-known discussion group Lurker (said · done) 16:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because you feel it is well known, does not mean it passes WP:WEB or that it is notable. This article has no references. --Hornet35 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply If it is underreferenced, tag it as such. This is one of a bunch of atheism-related articles you seem to see fit to remove from Wikipedia today- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danish Atheist Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Atheist Universe: Why God Didn't Have A Thing To Do With It, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Inquiry (magazine), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why I Am Not a Christian. Lurker (said · done) 16:53, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Just because you feel it is well known, does not mean it passes WP:WEB or that it is notable. This article has no references. --Hornet35 16:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- keep. Apart from being well-known, alt.atheism is used in information & comp sci fields because it is a high-traffic discussion board, if the (many) google books/google scholar hits are anything to go by. Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 17:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Reliable sources exist, as mentioned above. A quick (< 3 minutes) Google search turns up several scholarly papers discussing the group in a number of contexts (traffic metrics/handling, online community studies, sociology...) as well as criticisms of group in non-scholarly contexts. Unfortunately, I don't have time to parse all of these sources in order to add them to the article. However, it is inappropriate to AfD an article just because it is unsourced if you aren't going to make a real attempt to determine if sources can be found. Just tag it as "unsourced" and be on your way. LaMenta3 19:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. I believe that "alt.atheism has long been one of the most active discussion newsgroups in the USENET hierarchy" is probably the best assertion of notability for a newsgroup. Tag for references? Sure. Delete? No. Wyatt Riot 22:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: alt.atheism is not a website. Do we have any notability criteria for Usenet groups, or non-web forums in general? Judging by List of newsgroups and Category:Newsgroups, there are quite a few newsgroups with Wikipedia articles - I feel that this should probably be discussed at some higher level to establish some consensus on newsgroup notability. Mdwh 22:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is a group that I'm familiar with, but as much as WP:ILIKEIT, the actual article fails our standards for WP:N without proper references. RFerreira 23:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Is everything with the word 'atheist' in it being nominated for deletion today? Nick mallory 00:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak delete per RFerreira. Borderline assertion of notability but lacks secondary sources. Dbromage [Talk] 01:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete reads like a directory listing... no significant content that isnt shown on a google groups page. ALKIVAR™ ☢ 05:05, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The major usenet group on a notable subject should be considered notable. They contained major discussions over the several years before the modern internet. DGG (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. Notable long running discussion group. Nom pretty clearly fails WP:POINT. ornis (t) 06:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nomination fails WP:POINT as nominator tagged article as unreferenced 1/2 an hour before then tagging it with an AfD. Whoa - 30 minutes just too little time to do stuff. It needs to be a few weeks given global timezones and holidays ! Remember we don't get paid to edit here !. Ttiotsw 08:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep plenty of sources, appears to be a WP:POINT nomination. Italiavivi 19:41, 29 August 2007 (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.