Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker)

: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 delete. This a close against the numerical majority, but I feel it is required by the lack of adequate sourcing. The nomination challenged the article on notability grounds, and appropriately so, as reliable sources are lacking. Verifiability has not been challenged, but could have been, as the same lack of sources make it difficult to say anything that can be independently observed. I agree that this is the type of subject that should have an article, but in the absence of sources it is difficult to say what is real, and what is (if anything) is netlore. I will absolutely userfy/incubate, and give this a free pass to DRV if a anyone is so inclined. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

=[[Foothills (talker)]]=

:{{la|Foothills (talker)}} – (View AfDView log{{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/cgi-bin/afdparser?afd={{urlencode:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foothills (talker)}}|2=AfD statistics}})

:({{findsources|Foothills (talker)}})

Delete. Subject fails general notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete- the sources verify the subject but are not independent so notability is not established. Poking around on Google I have only found the following: a [http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A1010106 paragraph long mention] at a wiki-like thing run by the BBC and a possible passing mention [http://books.google.com.au/books?cd=1&id=5-xSAAAAMAAJ&dq=foothills+talker+internet&q=foothills+talker#search_anchor in this book]. Nothing to get excited about, unfortunately. Reyk YO! 05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Talkers are pre-web, and some sites referenced have 404'd. Further research beyond the web (and in books beyond those Google Books searches) would be helpful. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Searching the Internet Archive might pull those 404s if you know the webaddress(es). -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep or possibly merge to talkers article but this does seem to be a notable subject just needing clean-up and the right editor{s} to dig up where the history of talkers (whatever they are called universally or individually). This is true with the other noms in the subject area. -- Banjeboi 13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry Benjiboi, but you'll have to actually cite sources on this one or at least try to base your comments in WP policy. Wikipedia is not a primary source of information and we cannot create a "history" on this subject without being able to draw from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, without any doubt whatsoever. Foothills is an intrinsic part of early internet culture. It predates the popularity of the web and is a direct predecessor of modern social networks, instant messaging, and MMORPGs. Not to mention that it's still running after nearly two decades. I've completely rewritten the article to improve accuracy and support this case with many verifiability and notability references both in independent media and many books. Fox (talk) 03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC) — Afoxson (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. {{ #if: | The preceding unsigned comment was added at {{{2}}} (UTC).}}
  • Keep the sources seem less than what we ask for in other subjects, but I thin kthey;re OKfor this field. DGG ( talk ) 00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - have to agree with DGG on this one - sourcing seems just suitable enough for this topic's nature. Regards, Arbitrarily0 (talk) 02:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • DGG needs to substantiate his claims for inclusion, once again -- we do not play favorites. Either this has non-trivial coverage from reliable third party sources or it doesn't. Which is it? JBsupreme (talk) ✄ ✄ ✄ 06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep You can't expect to find too much written about something from those days. Does anyone honestly doubt the sincerity of the article's claim? If its not a hoax, then its notable, and it doesn't seem like a hoax to me. Dream Focus 21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond the Wired article, there's just not enough coverage to justify an article under our notability guidelines. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - source are good enough for something like this. Not everything has been written about in books and the NYT. Green Cardamom (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2010 (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.