48:. 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.
378:, 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.
354:
Sorry
Benjiboi, but you'll have to actually cite sources on this one or at least try to base your comments in WP policy. Knowledge (XXG) 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.
332:
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.
168:
479:
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.
456:
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?
162:
123:
226:
511:- lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Beyond the Wired article, there's just not enough coverage to justify an article under our notability guidelines.
263:
128:
292:
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.
96:
91:
100:
83:
404:
183:
17:
150:
400:
144:
58:
552:
36:
297:
202:. Subject fails general notability guidelines, lacks non-trivial coverage from reliable third party publications.
140:
537:
520:
503:
469:
451:
425:
387:
368:
349:
322:
301:
281:
241:
215:
65:
551:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
533:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
528:- source are good enough for something like this. Not everything has been written about in books and the NYT.
190:
433:- have to agree with DGG on this one - sourcing seems just suitable enough for this topic's nature. Regards,
87:
293:
79:
71:
414:
the sources seem less than what we ask for in other subjects, but I thin kthey;re OKfor this field.
156:
529:
463:
362:
209:
176:
392:
379:
516:
334:
307:
434:
396:
383:
237:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
481:
54:
457:
356:
274:
203:
255:
251:
512:
421:
306:
Searching the
Internet Archive might pull those 404s if you know the webaddress(es).
233:
117:
49:
258:
is not established. Poking around on Google I have only found the following: a
267:
259:
416:
289:
262:
at a wiki-like thing run by the BBC and a possible passing mention
545:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
113:
109:
105:
175:
189:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
555:). No further edits should be made to this page.
266:. Nothing to get excited about, unfortunately.
227:list of Software-related deletion discussions
8:
221:
225:: This debate has been included in the
254:the subject but are not independent so
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
1:
572:
538:15:32, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
521:00:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
504:21:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
470:06:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
452:02:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
426:00:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
388:03:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
369:07:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
350:13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
323:13:33, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
302:16:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
282:05:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
242:16:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
216:07:06, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
66:00:26, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
548:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
260:paragraph long mention
405:few or no other edits
407:outside this topic.
80:Foothills (talker)
72:Foothills (talker)
44:The result was
408:
244:
230:
63:
61:So let it be done
56:
563:
550:
500:
497:
494:
491:
488:
485:
466:
460:
449:
390:
365:
359:
346:
340:
319:
313:
294:Jodi.a.schneider
272:
231:
212:
206:
194:
193:
179:
131:
121:
103:
59:
55:
34:
571:
570:
566:
565:
564:
562:
561:
560:
559:
553:deletion review
546:
498:
495:
492:
489:
486:
483:
464:
458:
445:
441:
435:
363:
357:
344:
338:
317:
311:
278:
268:
210:
204:
136:
127:
94:
78:
75:
62:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
569:
567:
558:
557:
541:
540:
530:Green Cardamom
523:
506:
474:
473:
472:
443:
439:
428:
409:
373:
372:
371:
327:
326:
325:
284:
276:
250:- the sources
245:
197:
196:
133:
129:AfD statistics
74:
69:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
568:
556:
554:
549:
543:
542:
539:
535:
531:
527:
524:
522:
518:
514:
510:
507:
505:
502:
501:
478:
475:
471:
467:
461:
455:
454:
453:
450:
448:
447:
446:
432:
429:
427:
423:
419:
418:
413:
410:
406:
402:
398:
394:
389:
385:
381:
377:
374:
370:
366:
360:
353:
352:
351:
348:
347:
341:
331:
328:
324:
321:
320:
314:
305:
304:
303:
299:
295:
291:
288:
285:
283:
280:
279:
273:
271:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
246:
243:
239:
235:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
217:
213:
207:
201:
192:
188:
185:
182:
178:
174:
170:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
142:
139:
138:Find sources:
134:
130:
125:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
64:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
547:
544:
525:
508:
482:
476:
438:
437:
436:
430:
415:
411:
375:
342:
336:
329:
315:
309:
286:
275:
269:
264:in this book
247:
222:
199:
198:
186:
180:
172:
165:
159:
153:
147:
137:
50:
45:
43:
31:
28:
403:) has made
248:Weak delete
163:free images
442:rbitrarily
256:notability
468:) ✄ ✄ ✄
459:JBsupreme
431:Weak keep
367:) ✄ ✄ ✄
358:JBsupreme
234:• Gene93k
205:JBsupreme
513:Robofish
401:contribs
124:View log
393:Afoxson
290:Talkers
287:Comment
169:WP refs
157:scholar
97:protect
92:history
509:Delete
252:verify
200:Delete
141:Google
101:delete
51:Xymmax
46:delete
499:Focus
422:talk
184:JSTOR
145:books
118:views
110:watch
106:links
16:<
534:talk
526:Keep
517:talk
477:Keep
465:talk
412:Keep
397:talk
384:talk
376:Keep
364:talk
337:Banj
330:Keep
310:Banj
298:talk
270:Reyk
238:talk
223:Note
211:talk
177:FENS
151:news
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
417:DGG
380:Fox
335:--
308:--
277:YO!
232:--
191:TWL
126:•
122:– (
536:)
519:)
424:)
399:•
391:—
386:)
345:oi
318:oi
300:)
240:)
229:.
214:)
171:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
532:(
515:(
496:m
493:a
490:e
487:r
484:D
462:(
444:0
440:A
420:(
395:(
382:(
361:(
343:b
339:e
316:b
312:e
296:(
236:(
208:(
195:)
187:·
181:·
173:·
166:·
160:·
154:·
148:·
143:(
135:(
132:)
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.