Difference between revisions 690509 and 690514 on enwiki

< previous diff
next diff >
Talk:Alt.talk.creationism
What to do with pages like this one. It clearly (in my mind) does not belong in an encyclopedia, but who defines the limits? Any ideas? --[[User:Snoyes|snoyes]] 01:42 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

: Perfectly OK, factually verifiable content. The original version was not NPOV but now it's fine. We have many articles about websites, so why not about newsgroups? Many of those have their own culture. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 01:51 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

(contracted; show full) as they maintain - again - NPOV), then there really isn't a hard-and-fast criterion.  But it ''should'' be fairly obvious that while an entry about, say, ''[[alt.religion.scientology]]'' and that newsgroup's wild history would be a lot more interesting to see on Wikipedia than an article about ''alt.jesus.second-coming.real-soon-now'' or ''alt.binaries.mp3.burps.'' -- [[User:Modemac|Modemac]] 02:15 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)

⏎

⏎
::Yes, there are lots of useless newsgroups out there. However, there are many interesting and useful ones too. Shouldn't Wikipedia be a place where someone can find useful newsgroups?<br>[[User:Snowbird|Snowbird]] 02:19 Feb 22, 2003 (UTC)