| Revision as of 20:57, 10 July 2006 editCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →References and Citations← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:00, 11 July 2006 edit undoCrossmr (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers18,925 edits →References and CitationsNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ::I'm not talking about notability. I'm simply saying Usenet archives have to be the primary source for articles about Usenet and I'm leaving the discussion at that :-) ] ] | ::I'm not talking about notability. I'm simply saying Usenet archives have to be the primary source for articles about Usenet and I'm leaving the discussion at that :-) ] ] | ||
| :::They can't be. If self-published sources were allowed to stand for verification of anything, we could never remove any article, because someone would just have to fire up a blog and post whatever they wanted to keep. If the subject were notable, there would be sources outside usenet covering the subject. I wasn't arguing notability when this whole thing began, but maybe I should have put that in the AfD. There are subjects that occur within self-published communities, large forums, blog sites, myspace, etc that do get media attention. These are things that happen that really are notable. We don't use what transpired on the website as a source, we use the media reports as the source for those things.--] 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | :::They can't be. If self-published sources were allowed to stand for verification of anything, we could never remove any article, because someone would just have to fire up a blog and post whatever they wanted to keep. If the subject were notable, there would be sources outside usenet covering the subject. I wasn't arguing notability when this whole thing began, but maybe I should have put that in the AfD. There are subjects that occur within self-published communities, large forums, blog sites, myspace, etc that do get media attention. These are things that happen that really are notable. We don't use what transpired on the website as a source, we use the media reports as the source for those things.--] 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| There are three usable sources currently for information in this article. Sources from usenet are not usable per policy. The previous version that was created was not sourced at all, and each point was covered in the edit summaries, if you like I can recover them on the talk page. I've already made the concession that this version can be kept with the agreement that the only expandability done on it, is properly sourced. The behaviour surrounding this article and the attempt to include information that isn't properly sourced only strengthens the reason for deletion since people cannot seemingly abide by the rules. | |||
| I'm going to copy the previous version in here and go through it point by point so that each part can be addressed.--] 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:00, 11 July 2006
Trolling
Am I the only person who thinks that the OP of the "lumber cartel" theory sounds like a classic, very successful troll? It simply doesn't make rational sense as the behavior of an actual spammer. The article currently makes no reference to the possibility that it was a troll. Matt Gies 09:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it's a good possibility, though some people might find it very funny that you use "spammer" and "rational sense" in the same sentence. What comes to delirious rantings by people who believe in their causes, it's very very hard to tell difference between trolling and the real thing. I'd say there's a good 60% chance this was trolling and 40% that they were dead serious, though =) The article could refer to this possibility though. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Newsprint
The newsprint article says "Nowadays, virtually all paper is made from wood pulp, treated and processed in different ways to make different types of paper", conflicting this article. Thoughts? -- anon dude 11/27/05
Cyberpromo involvement?
If I read the original posting correctly, it tries to hint the original text was posted on Cyberpromo.com (Spamford's site), which regrettably isn't archived by archive.org. Anyone know if this was really true, and what other spammers were pushing this? --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
References and Citations
Content from usenet is never acceptable as citation, also create footnotes, or in-line citations. Anything that isn't directly cited will be removed. WP:V is non-negotiable and requires this, regardless of the subject of the article.--Crossmr 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Usenet has to be the primary source in this instance - what else could it be? Dlyons493 Talk 20:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Posts and archives on usenet cannot be the primary or secondary source. Regardless of what the subject is. This goes to both verifiability and notability. If this subject truly is notable a non-self-published source will provde the necessary information. This is why I mentioned on the AfDs for this and TINC, this subject, while a usenet in-joke, likely isn't that notable since its barely mentioned anywhere outside of usenet, and the amount of information available outside of usenet is negligabl, and certainly doesn't support the content of this article.--Crossmr 20:44, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about notability. I'm simply saying Usenet archives have to be the primary source for articles about Usenet and I'm leaving the discussion at that :-) Dlyons493 Talk
- They can't be. If self-published sources were allowed to stand for verification of anything, we could never remove any article, because someone would just have to fire up a blog and post whatever they wanted to keep. If the subject were notable, there would be sources outside usenet covering the subject. I wasn't arguing notability when this whole thing began, but maybe I should have put that in the AfD. There are subjects that occur within self-published communities, large forums, blog sites, myspace, etc that do get media attention. These are things that happen that really are notable. We don't use what transpired on the website as a source, we use the media reports as the source for those things.--Crossmr 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
There are three usable sources currently for information in this article. Sources from usenet are not usable per policy. The previous version that was created was not sourced at all, and each point was covered in the edit summaries, if you like I can recover them on the talk page. I've already made the concession that this version can be kept with the agreement that the only expandability done on it, is properly sourced. The behaviour surrounding this article and the attempt to include information that isn't properly sourced only strengthens the reason for deletion since people cannot seemingly abide by the rules.
I'm going to copy the previous version in here and go through it point by point so that each part can be addressed.--Crossmr 18:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)