Deletion of Natural History of South Asia mailing list (2nd nomination)

Comment: I reserve the right to retract my vote. I read and re-read . The mailing list is not appropriate for an encyclopedia and may only be acceptable as part of a broader entry in a new posting, such as Natural History of South Asia
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: I sympathize with your views on the notability of Linux Kernel Mailing List and note that you have taken significant interest in protecting it from the AfD and finding "proof" of notability. I am unable to find any mention of a "book with a chapter about the mailing list". An amazon review merely adds a keyword. Many items of the article are merely making use of pointers to the Linux Kernel which '''is''' definitely notable. Other trivia such as the information about the logo of Linux being decided is questionable given that wired magazine has serious doubts about the author.http://www.wired.com/news/culture/0,1284,42209,00.html The Kernel Traffic newsletter is no longer maintained but that makes a "reliable secondary" source. To you the statement that the list is a "bazaar" makes it notable. If popularity and numbers make it notable, then so be it. But then admins cite the guidelines only when it is in your favour. Why was  not mentioned in the LKML afd which passed. I understand WP:INN and I am willing to accept that  predicting an earthquake using a scientific hypothesishttp://docs.newsbank.com/openurl?ctx_ver=z39.88-2004&rft_id=info:sid/iw.newsbank.com:AWNB:IISC&rft_val_format=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rft_dat=107FDF5A8309F2BF&svc_dat=InfoWeb:aggregated4&req_dat=0D0CB57AB53DF815, finding a new species of birdhttps://lists.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind9608&L=NATHISTORY-INDIA&P=R1290&I=-3http://www.indianbirds.in/images/IB%5B1%5D.2.4.Liocichla.pdf (Ok, you have said that the list would have been notable if bird species were being ''regularly'' discovered and reported on this list - please note that species, especially of birds are rarely discovered the way Linux Kernel patches are announced), being in the front cover of every issue of a journalhttp://www.indianbirds.in/download/IB2005%5B1%5D.1%20FINAL%20web.pdf and being cited in conservation newslettershttp://www.google.com/search?q=JPAM+nathistory&hl=en&filter=0 is not enough notability. Anyway, there are other species discoveries which have been announced on the list. http://home.att.net/~spiderhunters/attachments/madhavai.pdfhttp://home.att.net/~spiderhunters/attachments.htm and there is a lot of legislation happening through this network. The links on the article seem to have all that is mentioned here, but I understand that finally it is going to be an  -  decision. And someone lower down has exemplified systemic bias by pointing out that this is a narrow subject dealt with in one (unknown I suppose) country. I understand that the new breed of admins are trying to make wikipedia into another Encyclopaedia Brittanica. Remember that all these arguments would have ensured the absence of very useful articles of the Toilets in Japan|kind that set wikipedia apart. I understand that each admin has their own subject of special interest and knowledge, but that doesn't entitle anyone to belittle other topics. Remember also that unlike programmers, there are people in other disciplines who are not spending time blogging, making websites ''etc.'' and creating a whole load of google hits. I hope you understand that you are ultimately making a subjective decision. To make it you do need to have some feel for the subject in question. If it is truly objective, which is unlikely, then there should be no selective amnesia about WP:guidelines and policies
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:BIGNUMBER||WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKEIT)

Comment: The creator of this page seems to be trying to garner support for their cause by asking for help from other users who have had, or still have their articles up for  (e.g. myself and Bluestripe at least) - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Atulsnischal. Although this is unlikely to be a problem I thought I should mention it - as users who are most likely to get their articles AFDed are either inclusionists or newer users who may not be as well versed in policy. Cheers
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion (WP:AFD)

Comment: I think the onus of proof is on those who'd like it deleted, and I don't think a case has been made in terms of  or  or other relevant guidelines and policies
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:NOT)

Comment: As pointed in comments above. If prediction of an earthquake on the list, report of a new species, references to the list on journals and newsletters and newspapers is not enough for notability, fine with me. And if mentions in a Linux book and a few reports of questionable authority can make LKLM notable, then this is just a case of  /. And using popularity/google hits as notability will always work when it comes to web or software related material. Finally, I would like to see administrators help in defining or refining policy and not merely use policy citations to win debates
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions (WP:ILIKEIT||WP:IDONTLIKE)