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 of the nomination was keep. Seems a bit pointless letting this run. I'm closing it. --Tony Sidaway 23:36, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lumber Cartel[edit]

All sources fail WP:V they are all self-published and unverifiable. Artcile is speculative, written vaguely, and conveys no usable encyclopedic information. Complete WP:OR. Might be a nice blog entry, its not an encyclopedia article. References unsourced opinion. Crossmr 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification the debate about this article is not about the existence of Lumber Cartel. While the Jargon file does provide a published source for their existence and a very general description of what it is, it does not serve as a credible source for any other claims, theories, information put forth in this article.--Crossmr 23:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Additional info This article has been here over a year plenty of time for someone to actually turn it into something if anyone cared about it. As such, regardless of whether or not the topic may be notable/encyclopedic in itself, as there is precedent for no one caring about the article and it should not be here until such a time that someone is willing to write about the topic properly.--Crossmr 05:55, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Weak delete If the author doen't want it that's fine by me :-). Keep On second thoughts, it's not really up to the author - I've no objection to Merge either. It certainly was talked/joked about a lot on usenet. Should be verifiable via archives of news.admin.net-abuse.email for example. Dlyons493 Talk 07:23, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Would of, could of, should of. This article has been here over a year. There has been plenty of time to clean it up and provide something verifiable that fits with wikipedia policy. Obviously no one is interested in doing that. It also needs major re-write because it reads like a conspiracy theory blog entry. I also used usenet a lot and don't recall once hearing about this. This is subjective, and may not have been that notable. As they currently don't provide a single credible source for this article, its complete original research, especially given the style of writing used in the article. This is a policy violation and is non-negotiable as per the policy WP:OR These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus The article cannot exist on wikipedia in its current form and no one is interested in cleaning it up. There is no reason to keep this. --Crossmr 07:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  and as as a secondary note, WP:V points directly to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources as a see also, which includes Posts to bulletin boards and Usenet, wikis or messages left on blogs, are never acceptable as primary or secondary sources so no, you can't use the archives of news.admin.net-abuse.email to source this article.--Crossmr 07:56, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a hoax without any credible references.--Aguerriero (talk) 18:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this was a Usenet phenomenon then Usenet is the primary source for it - the groups have date-stamped postings. [1] has 33,600 hits. It was pretty much a daily thing on news.admin.net-abuse.*. which was a group I used to follow in the early days of spamming. As DarthVad says it's much along the lines of There Is No Cabal Dlyons493 Talk

And usenet isn't an acceptable primary source, regardless of where it happened. WP:V is non-negotiable and you can't verify those postings to usenet. The timestamp does not verify who wrote those messages. The timestamp can also be forged as can the from header. And as I pointed out below regarding TINC its never been put up for deletion and it should. Its a neologism and defining and explaining it is WP:OR. Those jargon files cannot be used as primary sources as a definition.--Crossmr 14:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure I'm following all this - are you saying Google Groups timestamps and/or headers are forged? And what is the primary source for Usenet happenings if not Usenet postings? Dlyons493 Talk 15:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never made the leap from using a newsreader to one of the web-based alternatives like google groups, but does it just not show usenet content and allow you post to it through the web? Whether or not the specific google interface allows you to forge time stamps, I have no idea. But that group you're referring to is just a usenet group. Anyone can access that with a newsreader and forge their timestamp. Not-withstanding that, you cannot verify who made any of those individual posts which goes against WP:V this is why forums are also not acceptable as sources. As for the primary source of what happens on usenet, there may not be a primary source. Regardless of how notable a topic this may be within the usenet community, if no one outside it has ever covered it (like say Wired) then you may not have a usable source. Wikipedia is not an indescriminate collection of all information WP:NOT and from WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is thus verifiability, not truth" Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. As true as this article may be, if we can't properly verify it, it can't be here.--Crossmr 15:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may vaguely recall something called deja news? Google acquired their database sometime ago. Those archives go back to 11 May '81 [BBC]. The database is certainly more secure than many, many sites that are routinely accepted as reputable sources. Indeed, much of the uproar over Deja was because of the concern that they kept your words set in stone, so you could never take them back. You can forge a datestamp easy enough on your usenet client, but that doesn't keep the server from accurately recording when and from where it received your message. Keep in mind, as Bryan pointed out, this is not a case of using a usenet post as a source for anything other than it's own occurence. In that context, this is about as reliable a source as you're ever likely to see for anything. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for joke spam from usenet. Bwithh 08:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. This appears to me to be notable and the article seems to be in fairly good shape anyway. We have decided that There Is No Cabal is notable enough. DarthVader 08:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You can't justify keeping this article on the basis of a poor decision to keep another article. This article is also not in good shape. Its not written professionally, and doesn't contain a single credible source. I also see no evidence that it was ever put up for deletion so I don't see any concensus reached there for a keep on the claim that it was notable. The argument for deletion put forth doesn't even suggest deleting this article based on notability, its based on multiple policy violations and the fact that no one is interested in actually writing the article properly.--Crossmr 14:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Crossmr. I'm not sure that we should have "There Is No Cabal", either, since it does not have any reliable sources. I also find it very annoying, as some people say it at every possible opportunity, but that is irrelevant. -- Kjkolb 09:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - not verifiable. Inner Earth 14:52, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep notable meme documented in a published book. Honestly, this idea of unverifiable possibly-forged Usenet postings is a little paranoid in itself. Opabinia regalis 20:40, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I wasn't putting forth that it was, I was putting forth that it could be and that is why, among other reasons, they can't be used as citations per WP:V. Where is this book that is published in? Its not cited in the article. As I pointed out in the nom the only references in the article all fail WP:V and as such this is original research. Notability notwithstanding if no one can write properly about it, thats no reason to keep a poor article.--Crossmr 21:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Published in The New Hacker's Dictionary, which - as the dead-tree version of The Jargon File - is semi-cited in the article. With regard to verifiability, Usenet postings are obviously primary sources about themselves. In this case the authorship of an individual post is irrelevant, as the article is about the meme, not the spreaders of it. I'm ambivalent on its notability - I think There is no cabal is appreciably more widespread, and would support a merge - but deleting this on verifiability grounds is pretty wikilawyer-y. Opabinia regalis 23:02, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately this [2] doesn't work as a source for the entire file. While it provides a basis for the name, it doesn't provide a basis for most of the content in the article. For example "Somewhere around late 1997..." that reference in the jargon file doesn't give any verifiability to that statement. As for wikilawyering, please read WP:V the policy is non-negotiable and a cornerstone for content on wikipedia. Thats not wiki-lawyering, its safe-guarding necessary standards to ensure quality. A single source saying "Hey this exists" isn't license to write whatever unsourced information you want on a topic. --Crossmr 23:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original post was in Nov 1997. And is cited in the article. The long rant to which that post was a reaction was written not long before, though it no longer exists. So "Somewhere around late 1997" is about right, if poorly written. Opabinia regalis 23:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the citations are usenet postings, which are not acceptable for citation. The fact is every single claim made by the article outside of it being a mysterious cartel mentioned, which is covered y the jargon file, isn't properly sourced. Putting together theories and claims and drawing conclusions based on usenet postings is the definition of Original research.--Crossmr 02:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as a Usenet in joke that isn't actually that notable or encyclopaedic. I'll reconsider if mainstream coverage can be shown. GassyGuy 22:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable and referenced. Please keep in mind that the Jargon File, as it has been published several times, can and is considered a reputable reference for such things. Mackensen (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mackensen. Personally, I don't understand the logic behind this nomination. It could do with better sources than USENET, however; it has been published. Danny Lilithborne 23:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The name has been published with a short couple of sentences on what it is. That does not qualify as a citation for the entire article. Other than the name and those couple of lines off the jargon file everything else is unsourced. WP:V is non-negotiable. This has been here long enough that IF credible citations were available and someone cared to cite them, it would be done. It couldn't just do with better citations than usenet, it can't do with citations from usenet as they are unusable as primary or secndary sources. While I appriate that some feel its a notable subject, its immaterial to debate. The debate is not centered around whether or not it exists, its centered around everything else in the article, and the fact that once all unsourced information is removed you're left with a 2 or 3 line copy of the jargon file.--Crossmr 23:48, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to withdraw my vote (Neutral) in consideration of Crossmr's points. Danny Lilithborne 02:09, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, yes, this has phrase has been in published works, I remember it being mentioned in a book about the history of spammers that I read, but it is such a very, very, very minor concept (a conspiracy theory by spammers that anti-spammers adopted as a joke) that it deserves no mention in Wikipedia of any kind, and certainly not its own article. Recury 23:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete per WP:V. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 23:51, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mackensen above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The notability isn't in question, and its not referenced outside of its existence, so what are you keeping it per? I suppose if it would make it clearer for someone, I could remove all the unsourced content from the article so that all that was left was 2 lines so that people got a clear picture of the scope of the unsourced content.--Crossmr 00:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I questioned its notability, but yes the verifibility thing needs to be addressed as well. Recury 00:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, I don't believe it can, and obviously other than claiming it should be kept, no one else is interested enough to either. Which is exactly why this article was put up for AfD. While the Jargon file is a publish source that indicates the Lumber Cartel exists and why(very generally), there is no other credible source for the rest of the information.--Crossmr 00:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete WP != catch-all for every stupid joke on the Internet. Wile E. Heresiarch 05:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep as the original author of the article. Personally, I think reference to the original posting and mention of Jargon File / The New Hacker's Dictionary is enough of a source in cases like this. Yet, I'm happy to admit that this is topic isn't of a great big relevance and isn't exactly in great big wide use these days. Agreed with Wile E. Heresiarch that WP isn't a place for every silly net joke, even if they're quite dated and well-known =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 07:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Weak delete instead, see below. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No its not enough to be a source. Every claim and piece of information put fourth has to be sourcable per WP:V. So while Jargon File can source the fact that the lumber cartel exists, thats all it really provides. It provides nothing else, so when you removed the unsourced information you're left with an unexpandable sentence.--Crossmr 13:19, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, now I've had my coffee and actually read the crap I wrote in the article. I'm an idiot. You're absolutely right, of course. Articles on obscure pieces of net humour are very, very hard to ultimately source, especially when a lot of discussion about this stuff happened on some forums (or Usenet, in this case). My only defense when writing the article is that I certainly did not make new claims, just repeated the same stuff that people said when debunking this "conspiracy". So yeah, of course it looks like OR, while actually just KSRTPWRMFITHBAP (Kinda Shoddy Research the Professors Would Roast Me For If This Had Been a Paper). =) I certainly wouldn't begin such article nowadays... --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 14:39, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete, not particularly notable. 68.50.203.109 08:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to There Is No Cabal (TINC). This is a single concept discussed in two places. There is good evidence that this temr exists and was widely used (aJargon File is a reliable source for that) and TINC gives some other sources, including subject experts. Consolidate there. Just zis Guy you know? 15:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no evidence it was widely used. There is evidence it was used within a small group on usenet. Jargon File sources its existence, but sources nothing outside of that. TINC has no other usable sources on its page outside of Jargon File.--Crossmr 19:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm inclined to trust the Jargon File on this, since its author was there at the time. I certianly remember the humorous allusions ot the lumber cartel from my early days on Compuserve and Usenet. This is, of course, anecdote, not evidence, but if I can remmeber it I'm inclined to believe that others can too. So, merge what is verifiable and redirect to TINC. Just zis Guy you know? 20:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The Lumber Cartel is, in one sense, on the same order as Time Cube -- it is a kook notion that has gotten wider discussion well outside of the vanishingly small circle of its believers. Yes, there actually were spammers who told the press that anti-spammers were funded by the paper industry. However, the Lumber Cartel is also notable as a cultural phenomenon online, more in the sense of the backbone cabal, because anti-spammers took on the absurd aegis of the "Lumber Cartel" name. --FOo 00:18, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm sure you can cite that wider discussion?--Crossmr 00:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it's nn and per WP:V. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:11, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment User:DragonflySixtyseven is working on the article. I urge those who have argued for deletion to make it clear whether the rewriting satisifies their concerns. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 20:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Okay, I've rewritten the article substantially and added many pre-Wikipedia references, including Salon, Wired, and Gambling Magazine. Also many mailing-list archives containing posts with Lumber Cartel references, thereby indicating that the concept has retained its notability. Also anti-spam companies calling themselves the Lumber Cartel. Also note that, despite Crossmr's concerns, Google Groups doesn't allow posting via an external newsreader, so you can't falsify your datestamps. I'll concede that the Wired article has a warning that the reporter later faced some verifiability issues regarding her sources... but the fact is, the article mentioned the Lumber Cartel as anti-spammers, and that's the point of notability of a meme. Remember, this is a hoax, a confabulation. The Lumber Cartel per se never actually existed, and no one is claiming it did; therefore, we need no more prove its existence than we need prove Piltdown Man. DS 20:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  again, its not the existence that needs sourcing. Its the rest of the information put forth by the article. I've read the 5 acceptable sources (I've organized them) and while google groups doens't allow you to post via an external news reader, the usenet groups it allows you to read do. Not-withstanding google groups is no different than usenet, a forum, a blog or anything else that any random person can just create. It fails WP:V as a primary or secondary source. I've begun removing any material thats not sourced appropriately.--Crossmr 21:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Remember the threshold for inclusion on wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Opinions and information culled from an unverifiable source, while many might believe it to be true, can't be used on wikipedia. They can be linked as external links, which I've done on the article. They might need to be sorted and gone through to ensure relevance to the subject. I would consider withdrawing the AfD, or supporting a keep on this article so long as a concensus was reached and enforced on this and other articles like it (i.e TINC) with regards to ensuring proper verifiability. If people aren't interested in keeping the articles within the policies and guidelines, then there is no other course but to delete them as essentially useless in the context of an encyclopedia.--Crossmr 21:33, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. per Mackensen, FOo. This is an important piece of internet culture and history. Deletion would be a travesty as well as a tragedy. As to the WP:V argument above, this is a clear case where the rule being cited was worded without this sort of case in mind. It would not be appropriate to cite a usenet post for a source 99.9% of the time, and it's a good rule on that basis. In this particular case, however, usenet posts are verifiable and verified primary documents! They're much better sources, in this particular case, than exist for most articles. It makes no sense to throw the baby out with the bathwater simply because a particular rule was worded with the majority case in mind. Wikipedia:Interpret all rules and Wikipedia:Use common sense apply here. Arker 22:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"A travesty as well as a tragedy?" Those are some pretty strong words to throw around for something like this. "Internet culture and history" is more than well-represented on Wikipedia already. Let's counter this bias by removing or merging borderline articles like this. Recury 22:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• unfortunately the rule is a non-negotiable policy and a foundation for content on wikipedia. Usenet posts are not verifiable. Can you prove to me who wrote them? No you can't. They are never to be used as primary or secondary sources on wikpedia. I've included them as external links or they could be labelled "further reading", but they cannot be the basis for facts. --Crossmr 22:51, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what is non-negotiable is the principle expressed on WP:V, the principle of verifiability. It states clearly that it may be edited "to better reflect practical explanation and application of these principles." Keeping this would not violate that principle in the least. It would violate a legalistic reading that treats every word on the page as equally important and sacrosant, but I believe a fair reading of WP:V as a whole, particularly the two introductory paragraphs (where the quote above may be found) as well as sections 1 and 2 argue strongly against such a reading, as does WP:SENSE. Arker 00:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Usenet posts are verifiable as Usenet posts. ie, if the relevant fact is that "x was posted to usenet" then a link showing that x was indeed posted to usenet serves as verification of that. You can dispute whether they'd be verification for the fact that "y wrote x" but categorically excluding all Usenet posts as references under every possible situation is going a bit far. As one example of a case where Usenet references are perfectly reasonable, see Newsgroup spam. Bryan 23:23, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      I didn't disclude it, its already been discluded by wikipedia policy and guidelines. WP:SENSE has no bearing in this, as it clearly states that WP:V cannot be worked around by another other guideline, policy or editor concensus, let alone an essay. I can already see problems with Newsgroup Spam, and its not a proper example. Their first citation is in fact original research. They're making a claim "x was the first piece of spam to hit the newsgroups", however their only citation is the actual post itself. Thats the definition of original research, because there is no independent verification for that fact. A published source has to make the claim or present that as fact for it to presented as such in the article.--Crossmr 02:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

      • This is your interpretation. Several of us have already disagreed with that interpretation. The text of WP:V itself seems to militate against your interpretation. WP:SENSE and WP:DIAR merely reïnforce that. Please keep in mind that you are not the Supreme Court here, and just because you read the rule to disallow something does not necessarily mean that it's so. Arker 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep WP:SENSE and we have featured articles largely sourced from mailing list posts. (Although the article sucked before the rewrite.) Kotepho 23:50, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep References in Wired and other media establish sufficient notability. Might be worth referring to in the Spam (electronic) as well. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Which is all it establishes, well not really as the credibility of that article is called into question by Wired. The question put forth after I cleaned up the article was whether or not people could agree to only add properly verifiable information. Which should be easy but is a tough agreement to get around here sometimes.--Crossmr 02:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment[ [User:DragonflySixtyseven]] made a very good start at cleaning this up. Please look at it, rather than or in addition to the current latest version, before making up your mind. Arker 03:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  actually he didn't, which is why its in the current state. While it read nicely, absolutely nothing was sourced in it. See all my subsequent edits for the reasons each thing was removed. The problem with the article is the lack of credible sources, writing it so it reads well, or looks nice, does not solve that problem. The article currently contains all properly verifiable information per WP:V. If more proper sources can be found, additional information can be added to the article.--Crossmr 03:38, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Crossmr, am I correct in reading your statement to mean that Usenet posts cannot be considered verifiable at all, because people can fake the settings of their system clocks and claim that their posts are years old? Please answer yes or no. DS 03:50, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  No they can't be used as per the wikipedia policies and guidelines. All I'm saying about being able to forge timestamps and from fields is a possible reason they're not acceptable to make it easier for people to understand why they can't be used. The actually nitty gritty of it is meaningless here, because it boils down to: These things can be used as examples to illustrate a point, i.e. "Here is someone using TINLC in their signature on usenet", but you can't use it as a primary or secondary source for facts, opinions, theories, etc that you want to include in the article. --Crossmr 04:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I've read enough of the references to be confident now that this subject is worthy of an encyclopedia article, and enough of this discussion to be wondering if some WP:POINT violations may be going on here. Or at least excessive quibbling over minutiae - this isn't a court of law here. Bryan 07:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V isn't minutiae, its the cornerstone of the foundation for content on wikipedia. --Crossmr 14:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V isn't, but all this nitpicking over whether a Usenet post is a valid reference is. This is an issue of interpretation. Bryan 03:11, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as rewritten. Crossmr, you may want to be a little less aggressive in arguing your side. Your point is clear; there's no need to muck up the discussion by replying to each "keep" vote individually. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This is a debate, not a vote. When people who want the article kept make the same argument over and over thats already been addressed, I'm free to respond. I've already put forth as its been rewritten, I would agree to keep on the condition that proper sources are maintained for all information, but if people can't agree to abide by those rules then the article serves no encyclopedic function.--Crossmr 16:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  When a version of the article including several "proper sources" was included, you reverted. I don't understand this if your intent is really to ensure that everything has proper sources. (ESkog)^(Talk) 17:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The version didn't include proper sources. I've already covered that. You can look at the edit history to see why each bit of information was removed per the sources not passing WP:V. As I've said, while its written to read better, the information included was still not sourced.--Crossmr 17:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Note that Crossmr is removing wide swaths of sourced information in order to help build the argument for deletion. A very good rewrite with several good sources by DS is here. Please note that my "keep per rewrite" vote includes an endorsement of this version. One person is trying to WP:OWN this article. (ESkog)^(Talk) 18:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually if you vew the history, DS used his administrative power to WP:OWN the article to rewrite it with a wide swath of improperly cited information. I've covered the citations on the talk page, if you liked to discuss them, please do. I encourage it.--Crossmr 18:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well known internet meme. --Tony Sidaway 18:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Complete nonsense --Pilotguy ^{(roger that)} 18:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mackensen and Tony Sidaway. SushiGeek 18:20, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article seems in reasonably good shape. Stormbay 20:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well known internet meme, article is thoroughly sourced despite protestations of the nom, who seems to be advocating his point rather strongly, and spreading the conflict to other places in what is in my view inappropriate ways. Deleting swaths of the article as unsourced, without consensus to do so, while the article is up for deletion, strikes me as a very bad practice, not to be encouraged. USNET is an acceptable primary source for information about usenet lore and usenet memes, whatever the nom thinks. Perhaps the nom could spend some time working to properly source bios of living people, where the restrictions on what sources are fit his model better than how we source usenet terms. Keep ++Lar: t/c 20:43, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  So then you'll have no problem sourcing the policy that supersedes "Usenet can never be a primary or secondary source"?--Crossmr 20:48, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  If the rules prevent you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia's quality, ignore them. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:53, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:V These three policies are non-negotiable and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines, or by editors' consensusI believe that was already addressed here at some point as well, or on the talk page of the article.--Crossmr 20:56, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  You're swapping policies around. Your Usenet quote, where you have hung everything, is from our guideline on reliable sources. The concept of verifiability is non-negotiable. Reliable Sources outlines one way (arguably the best way in most cases) to achieve verifiability. (ESkog)^(Talk) 21:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Read the entirety of what WP:V says. Its not just the concept of verifiability, its everything in the policy that is non-negotiable. In addition to it linking to reliable sources for clarification, it also says in "Self-published sources (online and paper)". Exceptions may be when a well-known, professional researcher in a relevant field, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material. In some cases, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as their work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Usenet is a self-published source. Now going to the article, we see this source [3] in addition to not knowing who Vladimir is, we have no way to ascertain if he's a professional researcher or journalist, and if his work has previously been published.--Crossmr 21:14, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mackensen, an interesting piece of internet culture. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 20:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gamaliel 21:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm. Article about usenet. There are pretty solid usenet archives out there, looked after by google I think. I'll take your verifiability, and raise you a google test. Sheesh! :-P (I seriously can't think of a more serious answer at this hour. Oh, and yes, if you enjoy counting, take this one as a keep) Kim Bruning 22:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge/Redirect to Sanford Wallace - and Crossmr, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. KWH 23:24, 11 July 2006 (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.