Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meow Wars (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 Keep, or at least insufficient consensus to delete. NawlinWiki 23:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meow Wars

This did somehow manage to survive a previous AfD, mainly, it seems, on the strength of ILIKEIT, IREMEMBERIT, ITSFUNNY, and similar (non)arguments to keep. Unfortunately, while the article is amusing, there's no reliable source material available about this. "Sources" cited include a Google Groups search, alt.tv.beavis-n-butthead (you can't make that one up!), more Google Groups searches, and some personal-recollection essays not published or fact-checked by any reputable publication. I remember this whole thing too. Yes, it was funny, yes it fires up the nostalgia factor a bit, yes, I got a chuckle out of reading it. But it belongs on a net nostalgia website, not Wikipedia, because we're effectively putting together an article completely out of synthesis and interpretation of primary sources here. That's original research and publication of original thought. Since there are no secondary sources, this problem is unfixable, and the article should be deleted. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:22, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep I think for items like this, respected bloggers are usable sources, if its known that they are regarded as reliable. DGG 23:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable for Usenet despite lack of major press coverage; clearly verifiable (at DejaNews). JJL 23:34, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, USENET nostalgia notwithstanding, as I remember a little of this but it surely doesn't seem important by itself even in terms of USENET history. There are no reliable sources -- nothing at Google Books or Google News Archive. (Even alt.fan.karl-malden.nose is mentioned only a couple of times in passing, and not in relation to this.) Perhaps some of the material could be merged into newsgroup spam or (less targeted) troll (internet). --Dhartung | Talk 04:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per User:JJL. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 19:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even a USENET archive can be a reliable source on matters of USENET history. And I'm sure secondary sources for this could be found, possibly college newspapers from the schools where this was going on, or I.T.-related journals, even if they're only available in print. Also disagree with the interpretation of OR, this article merely brings together several sources without promoting an opinion or deducing any new facts. Squidfryerchef 11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Verifiable ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 21:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources here folks. Whispe ring 11:14, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was looking around in ODP, and the GWU.edu page this article uses as a source is one of only ten pages in the "Usenet History" section. I'd say that being one of only ten chosen articles on a historical subject speaks well of it as a source. Also I'd like to point out the term has entered the net lexicon, ex. Net Abuse Jargon File which means that it's notable and it's not just an argument in a Beavis fan group 12 years ago. Squidfryerchef 14:43, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to the "guide to deletion" page: "Anyone acting in good faith can contribute to the discussion. The author of the article can make his/her case like everyone else. As discussed above, relevant facts and evidence are welcome from anyone but the opinions of anonymous and/or suspiciously new users may be discounted by the closing admin. Please bear in mind that administrators will discount any obviously bad faith contributions to the discussion when closing the discussion. On the other hand, a user who makes a well-argued, fact-based case based upon Wikipedia policy and does so in a civil manner may well sway the discussion despite being anonymous."
Keep — a worthy, verifiable article ➥the Epopt 15:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect the important details to a subsection of newsgroup spam, as an example/case-study of that phenomenon. Per Dhartung and mergism. --Quiddity 01:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per notable and veriable. -- Kai ^talk 09:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.