Deletion of Rec.woodworking

Comment: Their FAQ (archive) has been recommended in http://books.google.com/books?id=he7EfAAA3vcC&pg=PA155&dq=%22Rec.woodworking%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=1#v=onepage&q=%22Rec.woodworking%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false this book. When a Usenet forum produces a FAQ that ends up being considered reliable by print sources, it should probably have an article here. Also covered at some length http://books.google.com/books?id=Faq4_oKS7xcC&pg=PA38&dq=%22Rec.woodworking%22+-inpublisher:icon&as_brr=0&cd=5#v=onepage&q=%22Rec.woodworking%22%20-inpublisher%3Aicon&f=false here so it meets the letter of  as well
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Fails the notability criteria of , which sets out what is needed for a website to be considered notable.  In short, the policy requires the website's content to have been "''the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself...''"  the policy specifically mentions that press releases, advertising and newspaper articles that merely mention the website are not considered "non-trivial".  Social networking sites and blogs are not "published works".  If the website hasn't been subject of such published works, it can still be notable if it a) has won a notable award or b) it is distributed by a respected, independent medium independent of its creators.  Social networking sites and blogs are specifically excluded from the last criteria.  This website does not pass any of the three notability limbs of 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)