Difference between revisions 693866 and 693870 on enwiki

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)


What purpose does the list of participants (with only one name) accomplish?  I don't think it should be here -- it's not like these people would have their own articles on the 'pedia.  -- [[User:Zoe|Zoe]]

: No comment on having/not having a list. (Because I have no particular opinion either way.) But as a general rule, any list with only one person on it has to be highly suspect. [[User:Tannin|Tannin]]

⏎

⏎

⏎
: It provides additional information about the newsgroup: Who's hanging out there, what kind of views can I expect when I participate? The information is factual and verifiable (just do a search on groups.google.com). The argument that the people in this list would probably not get their own articles doesn't count: The same is true for many other lists. It is, however, possible that some people eventually ''will'' get their own articles, there are certainly "Usenet celebrities", e.g. [[Kibo]]. 

: I hope that Snowbird will expand the list. But for the time being it can stay. --[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] 04:48 Feb 23, 2003 (UTC)