Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Off Topic Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 was delete. - Mailer Diablo 02:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Off Topic Forum

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether an article is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting heads (or socks).

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!
Note to editors: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts should be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}.


Delete - non-notable web forum; fails WP:WEB. The page was initially tagged for speedy deletion as an attack page, but the tone of the page has become less disparaging since. Fabricationary 02:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as perm nom Pinkstarmaci 04:04, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - fb site :thup: —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.226.90.194 (talk • contribs) 04:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete it's off topic. Danny Lilithborne 05:06, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the article needs major work, but the "community" on OTF is no less notable than something like Okayplayer. --Bigdottawa 06:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. A million messageboards have off-topic forums; this one doesn't make a case for notability among those. It's had a "history" and "controversy" no different from any other non-notable forum. As for Okayplayer, that site is a demonstrably popular forum which has promoted and released works by a large number of prominent hip hop groups. This forum, one presumes, is one section of a messageboard. There's not a lot of similarity here. -- H·G (words/works) 07:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - This is one of the UKs most popular internet forums and is certianly the largest Off Topic Forum in the World, since January 1st 2006. It is well known in the media and is a grapevine for current events in sport and news alike. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by KrisDorey (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - If the above statements can be verified by reliable sources (i.e. more than just the forum's own statistics), then I'd be willing to change my position. As it stands, I can't find any media coverage of this specific forum, and Alexa traffic rankings only cover the full domain, not individual pages. -- H·G (words/works) 19:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - One if not the best Off topic forum on the world wide web. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.81.18.152 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Hugely popular internet forum - debatable whether it passes WP:WEB. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdysn5 (talk • contribs) 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment, as I see it, it's not debatable at all. It almost certainly doesn't meet the first two prongs of WP:WEB. The third ("a site which is both well known and independent of the creators") has not been established in the article, which WP:WEB requires ("the article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section"). Until verification can be provided that the article meets any of the criteria, it certainly fails WP:WEB. -- H·G (words/works) 23:30, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Maybe keep, definitely rename. The term "off topic forum" is in common use on any number of websites, so notable as this particular forum may be, the title isn't particularly appropriate. I was the one who db'd the article early on, as I assumed it was a prank article about the "socially inept" members (as the article phrased it at the time), but in it's current state I'd say assume good faith and see where it goes, so long as it goes there under a more appropriate (and less appropriative) name. SB_Johnny | talk 23:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Changing my vote to Delete after another read. With the exception of the first paragraph or so the article is just silly cruft. If it's a web phenom, all the article needs to say is that it's a phenom, and why. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:14, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Agreed that is a good page but despite being the biggest OTF, the page could be placed under the header of SI OTF or somethingKrisDoreyAdam

User has already logged his "vote" once. Striking out duplicate to reflect this. -- H·G (words/works) 19:49, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - The last thing that flangepieces like Argel need is publicity. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.13.154.132 (talk • contribs) 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. More of your general forum vanity. Should we really care about which individual member posted what? JIP | Talk 17:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete typical forum vanity entry, complete with a list of the moderators! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 18:51, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind.--Andeh 19:45, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Starblind. --Wafulz 21:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete tried to check out board to see if it was worthwhile. You need to register just to look at the board. If this were a notable board, you wouldn't have to. Stev0 21:24, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Should be kept and tried as an organisation and not web content. The web is merely the medium for the informal organisation of like-minded users. "Organizations are usually notable if the scope of activities are national or international in scale and information can be verified by a third party source." The scope of the forum is certainly notably international and the fact the pre-registering and approval is required to view the forums sets it apart from being a run-of-the-mill online community and it is a member's organisation. Activities undertaken by the organisation include a charity bike ride around the world and meetings in London and Amsterdam. 68.145.107.234 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
    • There's already an article for the organisation at Sports Interactive. This article is about the forum, which isn't notable.--Andeh 09:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Failed to comprehend the point there. The forum in itself could be considered an independent, albeit informal, organisation separate from SI or anyone. There is international scope and notable events which give this forum an extra dimension from most other Internet forums. Okayplayer has been mentioned, a band called Los Campesinos! have been championed on OTF and recently signed a deal, in part thanks to the exposure received on OTF. Just because there is a general nature to the movement instead of a specialised one does not mean it should be deleted. It should, of course, be completely re-written. 68.145.107.234 21:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, this article is about as useful as a happy meal without a toy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.207.122.13 (talk • contribs).
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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Off_Topic_Forum_bc77.html"