English Wikipedia @ Freddythechick:Articles for deletion/Alt.usage.english (2nd nomination)

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 redirect to Kirshenbaum. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:16, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Alt.usage.english

AfDs for this article:

The given page title was invalid or had an inter-language or inter-wiki prefix.

It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles.

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Alt.usage.english (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Time to revisit. The first AfD closed as "keep" because, it was argued, there were significant hits in Google Scholar, News, etc. If you tease them out, it's less than one might hope for. This Chronicle blog reproduces a list from the newsgroup. This dissertation apparently uses the archive, given the one hit in the bibliography, and in earlier work the then-student seems to have cited it. There's a few mentions in other articles, but I see no significant discussion. The article itself is problematic: it relies exclusively on primary sources (and is obviously written by an insider), which it uses also to namedrop a bunch of notable linguists. I see nothing that makes it notable per GNG. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment Drmies is right on sourcing, but I'm not convinced that deletion is the only option. Is there a possible redirect target? The cultural history of Usenet is a nightmare to cover based on secondary sources (and not just random comments by fans), but is notable. power~enwiki (π, ν) 00:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 12:51, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Kirshenbaum. I found a few plausible sources for that usage Another possible redirect would be alt.* hierarchy, but Kirshenbaum seems like a better target. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

.

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.