slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
David, I take your point about him, but I've tried to make it clear that I'm not arguing about the individual, but about policy. Our secondary sources have to be authoritative, reliable, credible, and in some sense reputable. We can use Usenet as a source about itself, including as a source about its awards, but we can't use it to name individuals, because that's using Usenet as a source for claims about that person's notability.
I've been reluctant to jump in on this debate, but this position just seems too peculiar for me to leave it be. We can say that a Usenet group has voted to give an award to a person, but we can't say who that person actually is? What would we write instead of the name of the recipient?
He isn't notable except in Usenet terms.
So, if there's an article about this newsgroup, he'd be notable in that article's context?
IMO the newsgroup itself is notable, although I've never visited it myself I've heard it discussed repeatedly over the years. And if the newsgroup itself is notable, then I don't see the problem with describing the major activities that go on there.