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 of the debate was delete, with no objection to userfying to User:Larvatus/Biography. — FREAK OF NUR_xTURE (TALK) 19:27, Dec. 24, 2005

Larvatus[edit]

This page is a bit of a mess, but it appears to be about a usenetter of questionable notability. Delete as is. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Though the page needs some wikifying, Larvatus/Michael Zeleny is fairly well-known. Google for "Michael Zeleny" returns 843 hits [1]. His alternate spelling "Mikhail Zeleny" returns 736 hits. This AFD is the 2nd attempt to delete the page in 24 hrs, the previous being a specious WP:SD by a past usenet nemesis of Larvatus. FeloniousMonk 08:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you somehow implying that this AfD is not legit? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm saying the speedy deletion wasn't legitimate. That this AFD occured on the same day is just not surprising at all. FeloniousMonk 16:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's very common for a CSD to be followed immediately by AfD. And the implicit suggestion of bad faith is unnecessary. Reasons have been put forward; decide for yourself whether they're justified. rodii 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Knowledgeable editors will decide for themselves whether they're justified. FeloniousMonk 01:18, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

843 hits in Google (did you discount Wikipedia mirrors?) is not much for a supposedly well-known Internet activist. For example, usually all university professors who have written even few papers get that many hits and we don't think they are notable based on that alone. I think pretty much everyone here agrees that Archimedes Plutonium deserves his own page as a notable eccentric, but let me present this as a precedent: Edmond Wollmann gets 864 Google hits and is known among many Usenet participants as the winner of the not-so-prestigious "Kook of the Millenium" award by the alt.usenet.kooks crew. Yet his article was deleted because of lacking fame, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmond Wollmann. jni 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is helpful to search for the right thing. The Google Groups search is far more relevant to Usenet personae than its Web counterpart. (The latter reflects mainly the hits for my Alonzo Church Festschrift, my LiveJournal entries, and postings on privately maintained specialty web sites.) Thus we get 11,300 postings signed or referencing "michael zeleny" ([2]) plus 9,730 mostly distinct postings signed or referencing "mikhail zeleny" ([3]). Not too shabby for painstakingly handcrafted messages. For comparison, a notorious spammer claims a lower total of 17,700 postings signed or referencing "Serdar Argic" ([4]). Larvatus 12:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Comment. FeloniousMonk's counts of 843 and 736 hits for Zeleny's two spellings should actually be 110 and 45 unique hits. rodii 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Before anyone gets carried away by those numbers, please note that Googling for my name + cyclist scores 1,700 hits, and my Usenet handle scores 34,900 in Groups - and I am about as non-notable as you get. It's trivially easy to get a thousand Google hits via Usenet, blogs and links to and from like-minded individuals, and Groups hits is just a matter of posting assiduously. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:53, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. An autobiography of non-notable self-titled "Usenet attack philosopher" who seems to edit Wikipedia both for self-promotion and for advancing his partisan views. jni 09:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Rambling vanity page about some non-notable Usenet person. Reyk 09:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks to the expert edit by Proto, rambling no longer appears to be an issue. Larvatus 20:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Keep given the number of hits in Google and Yahoo (more hits than Google), and given that these hits bring up a large number of articles from countries other than the US, it would seem that Zeleny is suitably well-known to retain the article. Additionally, were I to initiate an Afd for every article in Wikipedia related to someone of whom most people had never heard, I would be busy doing nothing but submitting Afd's for several days. Jim62sch 10:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Neutral - I'm a usenetter, so I can't exactly vote to delete this. I've never heard of the guy though. --Cyde Weys _talk^contribs 10:50, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I'm a usenetter and I remember encountering Zelenys' postings. He was well known - even imfamous - in his day. That alone would merit a mention, as would his various spats with other usenetters. If Zeleny didn't merit a mention, neither would several other Usenet personalities. One small thing - I would remove the comment "He is not known to have grown up" from the article - it doesn't add anything to the article, which gives a fairly good summary of Zelenys' personality. Autarch 14:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • 62nd edit by this user —Locke Cole 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Usenet trolls are not encyclopaedic. Proto t c 15:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - real, verifiable, significant in a certain subculture. Wikipedia is full of usenet-related personalities. Guettarda 16:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Delete I nominated the article for speedy deletion in the first place, and I contend that it was appropriate to do so on the basis that it is a vanity page and not notable. Michael wrote the article himself and added himself to the Usenet page. The first paragraph of the Larvatus article says: Zeleny is a Usenetter known for lumpen-intellectual net postures, an absurdly pedantic sense of humor .... extravagant litigiousness, and nothing else of real consequence. Is there any way to interpret this other than a self-definition of "not notable"? Tim Pierce 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a side note I will add this: I don't bear Mikhail any ill will and am kind of amused to see thirteen-year-old flamewars dredged up in this context. I nominated this biography for deletion because it seems to be a profound violation of Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that he, or I, spent a lot of time flaming each other on Usenet is not a reason for either of us to have a biography to ourselves, and I would be quite happy if both of them were deleted. Tim Pierce 19:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think this issue has very much to do with your happiness, Tim. For better or worse, both of us have contributed to Usenet culture. Other people have recognized our contributions as notable or notorious. Since then, Usenet has been recognized as a legitimate subject for social ([5]) and technical ([6]) study. The category of Usenet people existed before I started editing here. Whom do you propose to include there? If you and I don't make the cut, who does? Larvatus 15:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable, vanity. Disclosure: I too flamed and was flamed by Mikhail back in the old days. Nevertheless, what Proto and Tim Pierce said. rodii 22:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- JJay 22:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Change to Keep based on arguments below. -- JJay 18:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Userfy if this was his doing, send it back to him. --Dschor 22:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I will not affect a neutral position in this debate. The relevant part of my partisan views worth advancing in this context is the lasting value of the Usenet culture. In this connection, I shall make three points. 1. The idea of a reliable information medium and resource emerging from an open, self-correcting Internet forum has its unique origin in the Usenet. Wikipedia is a natural development of its precedent. Among many subcultures that deserve to be commemorated herein, Usenet stands out in its affinity to the forces and interests responsible for enabling this commemoration. We are history in its making. Let the record show this. 2. Wikipedia thrives on unabashed promotion of personal and partisan agenda, prominently incorporating self-promotion. Encyclopaedic neutrality is not an attitude suitable for elective adoption by any single individual, but a painstaking product of innumerable individual conflicts. I am far from the best authority on applying stylistic guidelines to my own case. If it is judged worthy of preservation by the Wikipedia community in virtue of its substance, others can attend to its style much better than I. Otherwise, its stylistic faults are immaterial. 3. As to the question of this or that subject being worthy of encyclopaedic mention or commemoration, it is seldom subject to definitive contemporaneous adjudication. This is particularly obvious in matters of culture, where popular success in one's lifetime affords no guarantee of lasting influence. Van Gogh lived out his life as an obscure, parasitic non-entity, while Bouguereau basked in the loftiest honors and highest wages doled out to any artist. Our culture is impoverished by the shortage of contemporary records pertaining to social failures redeemed by posthumous acclaim. This lack is nowise compensated by the profusion of testimonials amassed in their lifetimes by the practitioners of officially certified arts. Storage is cheap. Memory is valuable. Make our memories matter. Larvatus 23:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Delete; vanity. --Pierremenard
  • 54th edit by this user —Locke Cole 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit made by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.26.10 (talk • contribs) 00:50, December 15, 2005 (Locke Cole 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Not sure why any of this is relevant information. And yes, I made this edit before I logged in, which is why I made sure to sign it properly. -Pierremenard
      • Depending upon how close an AfD nomination is at closure, votes by anonymous users and/or users with low edit counts are discarded. —Locke Cole 14:16, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If prolific output and longevity are not valid admission criteria for 'usenet people,' what are? Irina Feeney, 10:20 GMT, 15 December 2005
  • Quality and reception. Is Mike Godwin notable for anything other than Godwin's Law? What about Robert E. McElwaine, Archimedes Plutonium, or Wednesday White? Larvatus 11:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • That strikes me as an excellent example of appropriate deletion criteria, actually. I think that Godwin's Law makes Mike Godwin a significant figure in the history of Usenet because the Godwin's Law meme became so widespread. So I think Godwin qualifies as notable but that neither McElwaine, Archimedes Plutonium, nor Wednesday do (and, for the record, I count myself as a personal friend of Wednesday's). If someone wants to put a list of my contributions to Usenet in an article, fine; if the Wikipedia community doesn't think that's notable and wants to delete it, that's also fine. Looking at the Larvatus autobiography I don't see any explanation of why you're a notable person, what notable contributions you have made to Usenet, or why "Larvatus" is a notable name. I'm sorry, old foe -- I think it's clearly a vanity page. Tim Pierce 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • "I don't see any explanation of why you're a notable person, what notable contributions you have made to Usenet, or why "Larvatus" is a notable name." Perhaps you should ask WebEx corporate counsel or Min Zhu if they think is Zeleny is notable... FeloniousMonk 18:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • If someone can provide an independent source for the WebEX story, I would be okay with cutting the Larvatus page down to its bare verifiable essentials. Tim Pierce 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please follow the links in my LiveJournal ([7]). Everything available online is documented there verbatim. The original documents are reproduced in the case files in the Santa Clara superior Court. Larvatus 21:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
          • I would be very thankful for your review of the references to the WebEx story in support of your offer to condition your vote on these facts. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
        • The category in question is not concerned solely, or even primarily, with technical or structural contributions to the Usenet. Over the past fourteen years, I have attempted to contribute to its style and content. Whether or not one judges that to be notable or notorious, depends on his metric of note. Several people have credited my efforts in philosophical debate ([8]), agonistic banter ([9]), and antagonistic persiflage ([10]). I even claim having taken his breath away from yonder exemplary Usenet persona, Mike Godwin ([11]). Prior to the collation of old Usenet posts by Google, my generous fans regaled me with my own archive ([12]). Elsewhere, I have published a well-received scholarly book ([13]) and purged a publicly traded company of its child molesting founder ([14]). Again, anyone is welcome to find all of this perfectly negligible. But the determination of notable or notorious character of Usenet personae is not entirely up to any given individual. In the present instance, I submit that other Usenetters have gone on record attesting to my contributions in a sufficient number and adequate manner. Likewise, mutatis mutandis, as regards Tim Pierce's track record of purging improperly created "alt." newsgroups. Larvatus 19:50, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
        • FeloniusMonk, thanks for reminding me about the WebEx article; the last 2/3 of that article really needs to be trimmed down to two or three sentences. We don't need to know irrelevant trivia about Yahoo Finance messageboards nor any purely speculative self-references to WebEx employees allegedly trying to whitewash Wikipedia. Also, why should I not nominate Erin Zhu article for deletion as a non-notable Usenet person? Or should every violent crime victim who has dated some random Usenet poster and Wikipedia self-promoter have her own article here too? jni 12:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for "prolific output and longevity," merely posting on usenet for years does not give you the right to a wikipedia page. The only question is whether this person is notable, and as far as I can see, his main accomplishment has been causing some alleged rapist to leave the USA. Not quite enough if you ask me...--Pierremenard
    • This is absolutely true. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mike Corley for an example. - Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Setting aside the point that the alleged rapist is worth $100M, and his flight from the U.S. leaves a $1B publicly traded company rudderless, I agree with your objections. Hence my attempt to sum up my dubious discursive accomplishments. For whatever it's worth, I have my small but solid Usenet constituency. The category wherein I fit myself for our present purposes is that of Usenet people. For obvious reasons, it cannot comprise a Who is Who. But neither should it be restricted to a handful of "movers and shakers", even if anything of that sort could be reliably identified. We are documenting the emergence of a new culture, and its progressive and spastic refinement and retrenchment. This task calls for a great deal of tolerance. Larvatus 22:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • Edit made by: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.92.67.77 (talk • contribs) 02:18, December 15, 2005 (Locke Cole 10:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete; vanity. also, usenet trolls do not have any cultural value outside usenet. i might as well create pages for all the bullies from my nursery school. --lotusland
  • You are failing to account for the fact that the subject of the instant article is categorized among Usenet people. Does your nursery school has its own Wikipedia category? As to the vanity factor, what would it matter if the page had been created by anyone else? Larvatus 19:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • You are not exactly the best judge of your own notability. See WP:AUTO --Pierremenard
      • I encourage and assist independent validation of my significance as a Usenet person and of verifiability of claims made on my behalf by myself and others. That is why I incorporated links to evidence in the foregoing responses. Larvatus 22:25, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
    • The claim that this is a vanity page does matter, yes. See Wikipedia:Vanity_guidelines. You make some arguments above that you are notable in the Wikipedia sense, but you're hurting your own case by being such an advocate. If a dispassionate person were to write the article, and make some effort to cite sources that are "credible, neutral and independent", it would go down a little easier. As it is, it looks like Mikhail Zeleny primarily wants to keep the Legend of Mikhail Zeleny alive via Wikipedia. But what if said neutral person should edit this down, per Tim Pierce, and focus on the actual, verifiable sources of notability (as opposed to his failure to live up to his early mathematical promise, unverifiable allegations of teenaged "civil disobedience" in Dzerzhinsky Square, and the claim that his former girlfriend is married to Blixa Bargeld, which must be close to the very essence of grasping for notability)? When you expunge the unverifiable (claims to have named the Free Software Foundation), self-regarding ("attack philosopher"), and self-aggrandizing from the article, you are left with the facts that (1) he once sparred with some people who are genuinely notable for their achievements on Usenet, (2) he was given the thankless task, with which grad students are so often burdened, of assembling some papers in honor of his teacher, to be published in a volume likely read mainly by library cataloguers (Amazon rank 2,438,004!), and (3) he publicized his girlfriend's allegations of abuse by her father (slightly different than "purging" a company of him)---a decade and a half ago! Self-authored comparisons to Van Gogh notwithstanding, in other words, a non-notable person distinguished mainly by his desire to promote himself on the internet. Kind of a Cyrus Farivar without the publication record. rodii 22:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • One notable advantage of acknowledged autobiographies is the assumption of personal responsibility for their claims. Everyone and his uncle have the option of employing sock puppets for creation edits of their Wikipedia pages. By undertaking this edit myself, I remove all doubt as to being my own dog. "Pray tell me, sir, whose dog are you?" That aside, last I looked, the Dzerzhinsky Square venture was independently verified by the referenced testimony of Felix Kandel, whereas Cyrus Farivar still had his own Wikipedia page. Larvatus 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus a.k.a. Michael Zeleny[reply]
  • 4th edit by this user —Locke Cole 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Regardless of anyone's valuation of Zeleny's usenet contributions (my own opinion is, they were among the most interesting, since they covered rarely addressed topics, - as opposed to average typical Usenet regurgitations of received media opinions) they spanned a long time period, received wide resonance (up to the pages of "The Wall Street Journal", where somebody complained about Zeleny) and sparked many vigorous discusiions. If Zeleny doesn't merit own Wikipedia page, I don't know who does. --Tristes tigres 22:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
  • 7th edit by this user —Locke Cole 10:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Such subcultural activists deserve a place in any encyclopedia with a sense of humor and history.--Cberlet 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Delete Unencyclopedic usenet troll. Eusebeus 10:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would help if you were to provide some examples of encyclopedic Usenet trolls whom you judge fit to populate the category of Usenet people. Does any contributor make your grade? Larvatus 11:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Comment - if the page does remain, it should be moved to Michael Zeleny, with his internet nickname redirecting to it (and not the other way around). Proto t c 15:00, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion. FeloniousMonk 01:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Keep, but needs re-writing to remove Tristram Shandy-esque detail and to extend what appear to be quite notable qualities. Agree with Proto regarding the article move. More generally, the style is rather non-WP and, as an aside, I'd remove the somewhat salacious personal details. We do not need to know this here. --Plumbago 18:04, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Keep. Zeleny (Larvatus) reached the highest level of USENET notability for non-crackpots. All of the following are verifiable evidence of USENET notability, and if Zeleny is not a notable USENET personage, who else could possibly qualify for the honor? Within USENET, Zeleny made the Net Legends FAQ and (unfairly, but whatever) the USENET Kooks list. Off the net, his discussions with Godwin made the Wall Street Journal, some English-lit professor tried to have him banned for discourse alleged to be harmful to her students, as did an Australian philosophy professor he had made a fool of. Zeleny's postings got Richard Stallman to post personally in misc.gnu.discuss. Tushar Samant created a Zeleny Archive, long before the days of weblogs. Again, all preceding facts are a matter of public record. Few posters were as prolific in as many newsgroups, or as well-known short of being a USENET founder or uber-admin (e.g. Gene Spafford, Steve Bellovin). This is a no-brainer: keep the entry. [a non-registered user] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.122.108.10 (talk • contribs)
  • Thank you for recalling the Usenet record. One quibble: I did not make the KotM list. ([15]) Gene Ward Smith once tried to get me elected, but failed to get the votes. Larvatus 16:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]
• Wikify and keep: Unsure how to assess notability here, and the vanity issue is even more trying; however after reading the related pages it feels as though I just drank a Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. As such, it should stay. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 04:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. I like that drink myself. Larvatus 12:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)larvatus[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, vanity. I have never been in a flame war with Mikhail. Nevertheless, what Proto and Tim Pierce said sounds logical David D. (Talk) 06:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The last thing any USENET user needs is a vanity page to boost their already overinflated egos. Nobody becomes notable just because of some message board. karmafist 07:07, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable vanity. —Locke Cole 10:18, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy and Delete. The article contains no actual assertion of notability; even the relatively small number of Google hits is irrelevant because many of them are created by Mr. Zeleny (ie internet postings, accounts on other sites, Amazon reviews etc.). And given the fact that the article in question is almost wholly autobiographical, an even higher standard should be upheld in this case. - squibix 14:52, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or userfy. per nom. Non-notable, vanity. Agnte 21:28, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would say userfy but judging from this RFC the user might not be here much longer. WP:ISNOT a propaganda machine, whereas Larvatus is. Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] AfD? 22:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. "Assault philosopher"? Gamaliel 02:20, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, autobiography of a person with an inflated sense of importance. Very few Google hits for websites, and an inflated count in Usenet just shows that they guy posts a lot. That hardly makes someone notable. If somebody could somehow quantify Usenet posts about him, that would be more significant. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:04, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment Zeleny's significance is rather dramatically quantified by the fact that he is the only Usenet poster, out of several hundred thousand, to have ever had an unsolicited third-party archive created and devoted solely to his postings. The archive was formed by Tushar Samant in early May of 1998 (see threads in rec.arts.books with "Zeleny Archive On-Line" in the title) and initially contained 980 of Zeleny's articles. The archive was created on the basis of the high intellectual and rhetorical level of Zeleny's postings; as far as I can remember all other repositories of specific individuals' postings were just mockery of crackpots, as with (e.g.) Plutonium or McElwaine. User:Sqwik

• Comment The current Wikipedia entries do not adequately convey Usenet's importance or Zeleny's status within "the Net", which as of the mid-1990's simply meant the Usenet. Usenet as a technology (let alone a subculture) was of comparable import to the WWW, ARPANET or Sendmail, and of greater import than BitNet or Wikipedia. Some of the customs and innovations now taken for granted, especially the multiply-indented interlinear reply format (stacks of ">>>>"), were developed on Usenet. Zeleny was exceptional for (1) the number of long and high-signal postings (not just one-liners, in-jokes, flames, mutual adoration, XOXO and other material typical of high-volume posters); (2) the number of sources, often recherche, cited or quoted in his postings; (3) the number of excellent translations of sources that he posted in the course of discussions; (4) the extent to which he used and treated Usenet as a scholarly and archival medium, including full quotation of the history-to-date and comprehensive interlinear reply within each posting; (5) the level of erudition displayed and complexity of vocabulary deployed (many people at the time remarked on both of these points); (7) the number of phrases and expressions coined, often as trenchant witticisms within a serious analysis of some text or issue; (8) the number and diverse range of newsgroups in which he was a leading or notable personality; (9) the number and extent of the episodes where his postings had effects beyond the Usenet, such as the Wall Street Journal coverage of his Internet dispute with Mike Godwin. Godwin is remembered in the Wikipedia for the phrase "Godwin's Law", but he also introduced the term "Zelenites" for Zeleny's fellow travellers on the Usenet. I don't know of many, or any, other Usenet personalities who were notable enough to earn a similar coinage. User:Sqwik

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.