Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Palace (talker) (3rd nomination)

:{{la|Crystal Palace (talker)}} ([{{fullurl:Crystal Palace (talker)|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Palace (talker) (3rd nomination)}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

This article cites no sources, and I can't find any third party sources ([http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22Crystal+Palace%22+talker&scoring=t&sa=N&sugg=d&as_ldate=1990&as_hdate=2019&lnav=hist8 everything on a google news search] seems related to a football team, not the talker). Without them, this doesn't meet WP:N/WP:WEB. In other words, if we actually wrote this article properly, by summarizing sources rather than writing our own opinions, there'd apparently be nothing to write. The first AFD was 3+ years ago, before modern notability guidelines existed. The second AFD was recently, but no one participated... which for some reason resulted in a no-consensus close... despite there being utterly no reason given to keep the article. Chiliad22 (talk) 22:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. I have made exactly the same experience: I found no sources at all other than the website crystalpalace.talker.com, which doesn't even have any usable information. The article has had a tag asking for references for half a year now, the talk page has been inactive since 2006. It doesn't look as if there is anything salvageable here. --Hans Adler (talk) 23:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. Talkers predate the WWW where most sourcing is found. It was probably well known in its day and you would most probably find a lot of buzz about it in Usenet archives but that's not good enough for our current notability guidelines. Score one for the FUTON demon. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
• Keep If there is material in those archives it is good enough for the purpose. (I assume from Ron's comment that there are--I have not investigated) We need to adopt our view of what sources count as reliable to those appropriate to the subject. (Obviously one would not use such sources if there were better.) DGG (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• What I should have said was that if there was any kind of sourcing at all, it would be in Usenet archives or old mailing lists archives which would be true for any Internet related subject that predates the world wide web like talkers. I also agree with you, I think such subjects should be included if someone could demonstrate that they are "notable" (by the ordinary definition, not ours) by using such sources. However, the current guidelines say otherwise. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• The current guidelines are right to do so. Anyone can write anything at all on Usenet, including forging posts in other people's names — a practice that is in no way a recent invention, as you know. Presuming that there is such material on Usenet (which can be brought up with Google Groups, by the way), how do you know (a) that it was actually written by the person named in the "From:" or "Sender:" fields, (b) who that person is, and (c) what that person's reputation for fact checking and accuracy is?

  Here's a example that might drive the point home: Put your name, "Ron Ritzman", into Google Groups, and the second thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman is a troll. The first thing that comes up is a post saying that Ron Ritzman "flunked out of clown school". Would you accept this as reliable sourcing for a Ron Ritzman article? No, you wouldn't. And the reason there is the same reason as everywhere else. The people making those posts did not have factual accuracy as their goal, and even though they didn't use pseudonyms, there's no reason to believe that they are who they claimed to be. They are not identifiable, they have no discernable reputations for fact checking and accuracy, and even if they had they have no motivation to uphold those reputations when posting to Usenet.

  You want to counter FUTON bias? Look to published books and papers. If they don't exist, regret that no historians decided to document this particular piece of history, not that an encyclopaedia aims for accuracy and requires that historians have done so, and done so properly such that their writings can be authenticated and their credentials/expertise known.

  Usenet is "text on the 'net", by the way. Rejecting Usenet postings in favour of proper sourcing is not an example of FUTON bias. Uncle G (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• So we should keep an article because someone said there might be information on the Usenet archive, but you didn't check? That just seems very irresponsible all around. Anyone could post anything to Usenet... and you're not even sure anyone did that much. This "there might be information on Usenet" defense could justify an article on literally anything. I hope the closing admin will note DGG's keep comment was contingent on that information being found in Usenet archives... but even then, Usenet posts are about as unreliable as you can get. --Chiliad22 (talk) 00:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. While the topic may not lend itself to citation in reliable sources, that is what's required to show notability. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

: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.