Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PS3Forums

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, only counting legitimate users. SushiGeek 01:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] PS3Forums

Not notable enough; probably there to help promote it Thorpe | talk 17:25, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read through the forum thread to show that my reasons below state that votes to keep this are coming from members of PS3 Forums. --Thorpe | talk 22:31, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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 ballot, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page 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. You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing! Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}

• KeepPS3 forums is a mature, unbiased gaming community. Although we mainly talk about the ps3, there is also a section for x360 and revo, and we respect everybody's opinion and choices. Unfortunately, immature fanboys who are giving power, are trying to ruin it. Keep one of the fastest growing gaming communitites.Trinity
• Delete, per nom, and that the site is not official. Sounds more like a fan-made site to me, which can be POV in some aspects. Also, it's a borderline fail for WP:WEB Darknut Slayer 21:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: nn forums that fail WP:WEB. --Hetar 09:10, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep try going to the site and take a look around, there are different than others.WP:WEB. --Gamerman 2:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep go to the site. This website is far more professional then any other website on the internet.WB:WEB. --Keesie 9:13, 9 April 2006 (GMT +1)
• Keep This is an informative page and the site is used by tens of thousands of gamers. --Morphzilla 12:13 GMT, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A fast-growing gaming community worthy of inclusion. --Kieran 13:21 GMT, 9 April 2006 (UTC) (voted under 86.17.63.244)
• Delete, its just an endeavor by a webmaster to promote his/her fanmade website. This unofficial site does not offer any redeeming content whatsoever that is useful for anyone, and the credibility of its content is easily disputed considering that the site is dedicated to the proliferation of fanboyism over a particular product.
• Comment I would just like to make note that the following users who voted in this nomination ave very few edits or only contribute to the PS3Forums article:
  • Gamerman (only contributed to PS3Forums and the deletion page) (tried to vote multiple times)
  • Keesie (only contributed to the deletion page)
  • Morphzilla (contributes only to PS3Portal, PS3Forums and the deletion page)
  • 86.17.63.244 (IP address, one edit to PS3Forums and to the deletion page)
  • LpChris12 (contributed only to deletion pages for PS3Portal and PS3Forums)

My argument is to not include votes for these users. Do other Wikipedians agree? --Thorpe | talk 13:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Agree with Thorpe and vote Delete per nom. --Andy123(talk) 13:31, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So Thorpe you can't give a good reason why this page should be deleted, so instead of making an agruement you try to discount votes that disagree with you. Guess what this forum is notable it made runs though Gamespot and other websites after an April Fools joke about Mircosft was going to buy them out. Plus a lot of forums have mention how it strives to be an unbiaed forum with its heavey modding done by deleting any unproven fanboyism remarks. For those who think it should be deleted because it is an unofficial PS3 forum guess what only Sony has the official making every forum outside of that unofficial. WP:WEB. --Gamerman 13:49, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Gamerman, your only arguement about it being "official" is that Gamespot mentioned it in an April Fools joke, and a statement that your site is unofficial. Unfortunately, those really aren't great reasons why it should be kept. It being in an April Fools joke means nothing. That proves nothing about it being a good and official PS3 forum. I understand that the site is un-biased, but it's still an unofficial forum. Therefore, while many other forums are unofficial, your Wikipedia article will be and is considered advertisement of a forum. It doesn't come from and benefit Sony or the PS3, but is only a place for gamers who will buy the PS3 to talk. No helpful history and no real important data. That's why it fails WP:WEB. Thank you. Darknut Slayer 19:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep That website is great, it is ranked in the top 30,000 in alexa. I say keep it. I can;t see why we have all these pointless pages that are still open and you are considering deleting this

section. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerdefinitions not done by Gamerman.

• Comment So far the whole agruement from you deleters is that it is a fan-made unofficial site but yet one quick check of the Category:Internet forums you can find two fan-made sites. Half-Life Fallout a fan made site with no relationship with Valve, why isn't that up for deletion? Or maybe GTA-SanAndreas.com another fan made site with NO relationship with Rockstar Games and/or Take-Two. The only reason this stands out is because it is a PS3 website. Darknut I never said it was official and I also had put "and other website" but looks like you forgot that I said that other forums have talked about its modding. Again any gaming forum not made by a console, developer, or publisher is an unofficial site.Also trying to discount votes to pass something is a terrible pactice to do Thrope.Disagree Gamerman 02:12, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Only reason why I don't want those to be counted is because they are most likely from the PS3Forums site and have been told to come here to keep the article up - or someone may be using multiple accounts. They have few few contributions. Some only contribute to PS3Forums. Can't you see my point? --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep PS3Forums has over 11,000 registered users and is linked to the top search results in Google for "ps3" and "playstation 3", which are ps3portal.com and ps3land.com, respectively. With that in mind, I don't see why this website would need a wiki article to promote themselves. Disagree With Thorpe on nullifying the above users' votes, everyone's opinions should be equally valued, regardless of their experience on Wikipedia LpChris12 20:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but all I think of this is other people are coming to this page to vote "Keep" because either they are a member of the site. Read the notice on this page more clearly. --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep There is no reason to take it of. Its one of the best forums out there...there is minimal trolling which can't be said for most sites. While it does focus on the ps3, it has many other sections. Ricokillercon 3:02, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

• Comment The site is 'notable' - just look at the 11 thousand pre-launch members the site has. It is already (pre-launch) the largest independent PS3 Forum on the net. This page is also in no way promotional it was created purely to act as encyclopedic entry to be informative for people who want to find out about the forum. Many other sites have Wikipedia pages from large sites like IGN[1] to tiny by comparison sites like Game Freaks 365[2]. The fact that personally I have only contributed to this page is not true and also irrelevant. I'm not a Wikipedia admin and am only interested in helping provide information to its users. If I feel that this page deserves to be here purely to inform the world about what PS3Forums are then in my mind that is a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Morphzilla 09:41, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

• CommentI assure you that none of our members have been instructed to "ballot-stuff" this discussion, we have one topic regarding our Wikipedia page, and any discussion that goes on in there is related to this right now. However, I feel that your reasons for putting this page up for deletion have been disproven. Others have already given you numerous reasons to prove that it is indeed notable enough, and, as I said earlier, it is linked to the top search results in Google for "ps3" and "playstation 3", which are ps3portal.com and ps3land.com, respectively. Now, which do you think has more unique hits per day, Google or Wikipedia? LpChris12 07:40, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

• Comment No matter how popular it is the site I think doesn't really need a place on Wikipedia. I am trying to say it still isn't going to be notable to a lot of people even if you are in Google results. There are probably thousands of other unofficial sites in a top 10 keyword result of Google. Does that mean they all got to be put in here? No, just like PS3Forums it isn't notable to a lot of people. The site was most likely put on Wikipedia just to gain even more popularity because they know many Wikipedia pages come near the top of search results. Some of you who voted "Keep" have never even contributed here before and your interests are just contributing to that article and this deletion page. LpChris12, Morphzilla, Gamerman, 70.251.126.100 and 66.108.165.16 are probably users from PS3Forums and may be using multiple accounts to gain more votes. --Thorpe | talk 12:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment No I don't see your point because people have to make an account to vote on this stuff. Plus they are joining because they disagree with you. Yeah a lot of them are joining just to tell you that you shouldn't delete this page because it is notable but you just want to ignore them for no reason. Maybe you should listen to what they have to say and do some research before you make judgement on anything. Only because you don't like what the website is about doesn't mean that it should be up to deletion, try pushing your bias side. Another we thing this site doesn't need or use advertising to grow, since its parent sites are the first to sites you find by typing in "playstation 3" or "PS3" beating out the wikipedia page on the PS3 and playstation.com. Yeah the site Sony made to talk about the own products gets beat out by this. Gamerman 11:50, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

I never mentioned I dislike the site. Make sure you think before you save the page in future. People don't have to join Wikipedia in order to contribute. You can contribute without even logging in. The system just records your IP address. This is what I don't like. People coming for PS3Forums and just voting to keep PS3Forums article up because obviously they support the site. They probably don't know what qualiifies to be an article here. I hope I have made myself clear now. --Thorpe | talk 18:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - verifiable. For great justice. 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment ...to those supporting the PS3Forums (which I agree with Thorpe about them solely being from the PS3Forums), the site's quality to its users and the number of users does not mean it's suffiient enough to beome a Wikipedia page. I can understand that it's unofficial, and there's over 1,000 peple registered. The truth is, no one really cares about that when people search for useful infomation. Wikipedia isn't a site where forum members can post information about their forums for their people. It needs to benefit the community as a whole. The article does not fufil this. Doesn't matter if it's official or unofficial. It's uninformational. And...if it's not for its registered users, it would then be considered advertisement. In this, it fails miserably. I now change my vote from Delete to Strong Delete . -Darknut Slayer 18:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's as clear as someone can put it. Content on Wikipedia has to benefit for a whole community - not just members of PS3Forums. --Thorpe | talk 18:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I already addressed this issue saying you have smaller fan-made sites on Wikipedia that are here for pure advertisement but yet you don't delete them. Also you call yourself a Nsider who I think is using he's bias to pull PS3 page of wikipedia. Just to add it is talking about how it runs its forum that may help others who are just starting one. Gamerman 3:16, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

• Comment Thorpe, I have already stated my position on this subject, so I won't waste your time and anyone else's by re-stating it. But I will however, re-state that the members of our forums have ```not``` been making duplicate votes in this discussion. I will not deny the fact that I am from PS3 Forums, in fact, I am a Moderator there, and I definitely would not approve of our members doing this on our website, or any other websites for that matter. I'm not asking you to change your mind, since it seems that you, as well as the other Wikipedians here, have already made up your mind on the subject of this topic, but I will ask you to please not accuse our forum members of stuffing a ballot which you have already so clearly pointed out to be useless. Thank you. LpChris12 16:34, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

• Comment OK, to Gamerman's last comment - I hope you wasn't directing that at me. I am a supporter of Nintendo and Sony. I plan to get PlayStation and Revolution when they come out. LpChris12 - I am saying that forum members doing this could be a possibility. Anyway, as for other non-notable sites currently on Wikipedia they may eventually get deleted. Things change all the time on Wikipedia. --Thorpe | talk 21:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Hoping to be an impartial judge, I would be remiss to not point out that upon visiting PS3forums.com, I found a thread talking about this issue. In it, the following comments are quoted here: "Thorpe you are going down," "This kid is real prissy isn't he?," "Thorpe knows he is losing so now he wants to cheat," "Really he is unmature 16 year kid," "What the *expletive deleted* Wikipedia made him an admin at 16." And you cannot deny that you are not rallying votes. There are posts with running updates reflecting the vote count, and a blatant call to "rally votes." http://www.ps3forums.com/viewtopic.php?t=19215&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

TheLaw 4:50, 10 April 2006 (GMT)

• Comment (response to forum thread) I was just going to post a link to the forum thread (did a search for Wikipedia on the site). They want me down. Guess I won't be welcomed if I join (even though I like PS3). I am doing what is possibly right here. Being an admin at age 16 is allowed and there are younger administrators here at Wikipedia too. Whoever said people were not voting here from PS3 Forums is wrong because I see plenty of discussion in the thread. [3]. So, there's plenty more as well in the topic. One member in the thread even states that everyone sign up to Wikipedia and vote to keep it. My point exactly from earlier. I would like to state that I did not put this page up for deletion because I was banned from PS3 Forums. I have never even joined or come across it. The only forums I participate in mainly are GTAForums, GameSpot, Gamesradar and YourPSP. There is also no such thing as "winning" (as described in the thread). Remember, new users or people just contributing to PS3 Forums who have voted here will not count. They are still welcome to comment (as explained at the top of this page). Even if the page is deleted it will still be on Wikipedia (only viewable by admins). So, you could (if deleted) request a copy of the page from an admin. Oh, I am not an Xbox fanboy. I do not own a Xbox or Xbox 360. I own PlayStation 2, PlayStation Portable and Nintendo consoles just to let you know. Check out my games collection to see. --Thorpe | talk 22:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Of course, there are a few users who believe what has been said above, but many of it had been speculation, as the users probably did not see the reason for you to nominate this page for deletion. If your heart was in the right place, then I have nothing to hold against you, and neither should any of our other forum members. We may not see eye-to-eye on this subject, but don't take that as hostility towards you or any other Wikipedia Staff who may have commented in this thread. LpChris12 18:48, 10 April 2006 (GMT -5:00)

• KeepPS3Forums has long been a reliable and non-bias site for easy access to a wide verity of nex-gen and past-gen information. We are not some small insignificant site either. Tommy Talarco and the popular site www.joystiq.com are only a few examples of people who visit the site. This article is not hurting your site and so far the only damage is being done by the users proclaiming PS3Forums is a fanboy haven which the forums has strict rules against. Visit www.PS3forums.com and you will see how large and high quality the site really is. ~Perfect Sin (68.1.165.96)
• Delete. Ad. -- cmh 02:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Again, Thorpe can you state what part of the What Wikipedia is not and this page, also state why it breaks it. Also you don't think the forum that this page is about wasn't talking about this? A lot of the comments are immature but when they look at this what are they suppose to think. From you basically saying that there comments don't count, try to be fair and unbias on this. Thorpe am sure you would be welcomed at PS3forums as long as you don't act like you have done on the this page. Also it is a proven medical fact that a 16 year old is immature, since the brain isn't fully deveploped till your 21. Areas that are affected are those that are suppose to handled self-control. So take no offense when someone says your immature, till your 21. Gamerman 10:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Before I say anything - no I'm not a member, and no I'm not an administrator. However, I am a long-standing supporter of Wikipedia and level-headed individual, so I feel justified in asserting my views. There are two main criteria at play here: 1) Whether PS3Forums is a 'notable' site; 2) Whether PS3Forums provides a sufficient source of information. I feel that the forums meets both these tests.

First off, notability: PS3Forums is the largest and oldest independant PlayStation 3 forums on the Internet - with over 11,000 members. There are many much smaller and less significant websites which have been allowed a page here at Wikipedia. During events such as E3/CES, the forum has literally hundreds of gamers viewing and using the site at the same time (800 during E3 2005). With over 320,000 articles on the site, it is the home of tends of thousands of gamers - and there is a very strong sense of community. I'm sure, Thorpe, that if you joined the site you would certainly have a very warm welcome as a fellow gaming enthusiast. Owing to the extreme significance this community has on the lives of of so many people, I feel it meets the notability criteria.

Secondly, informational value. This test, especially, I feel the forums meet without question. As a buzzing hub of gamers, the very latest news is constantly being discusssed - and we frequently have new pieces of information way before larger sites such as IGN and Gamespot. Top journalists at sites such as Joystiq, Gamespot, IGN, Gamesindustry.biz are readers of the site, and indeed the staff at the forum have spoken with many of them. Furthermore, many reprensatives from gaming houses such as Capcom and Eidos are frequent readers of the site. If all of these prominent organisations read our forums for information - how can it be argued we don't provide informational value? It's clear that anyone seeking the latest information, such as our fellow Wikipedians, would be well-placed seeing this page and checking out the forums. Furthermore, due to our zero-tolerance policy on fanboyism and blind console loyalty, all information presented on the site is balanced and education. We are not a place to aid the proliferation of biased propoganda - we encourage intelectual debate and comment. Surely we warrant one page on Wikipedia informing your users of how the site functions, whats involved, etcetera.

Moving forward, I agree that in it's current form the page posseses little value. We need to work together to create a PS3Forums entry which adds purpose, and enriches Wikipedia as a whole. We are asking you to, based on what has been said, reconsider the deletion of this page - and work with us to create a page which benefits everyone. Thank you for reading this. --- Kieran O'Neill (A concerned wikipedian and forum member) 16:24, 11 April 2006 (GMT) (comments left by 86.17.63.244)

• Comment I believe Kieran O'Neill is going in the right diretion. As I have personally seen the PS3Forums, I can agree that the actual site is informational and popular. However, while agreeing to this, I still cannot support its keep or a clean-up. I cannot see anyone adding more to the atual article than there already is, which is not much at all. There is no clear history of the forums, minus the first introdutory paragraph. There is unorganization in the board list, and no clear definitions to any of the important boards. There is no actual useful information about the forums either. Now, I do agree this could be a very informational page about the PS3Forums, but it needs a lot of work. I still put mine as a Delete. Darknut Slayer 18:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. I am fairly neutral about this article, but as it stands I don't think it makes it. I have copyedited it to remove some of the dreadful POV and vanity - and I did this objectively whilst still being completely neutral towards this discussion (honest). I could have further removed the detailed description of the layout of the site - something you shouldn't find in any other article. I edited it so I could see what was left after it had been made suitable for an encyclopaedia, and after some consideration I'm afraid to say I don't see much in it. It's just Yet Another Forum and we delete these things all the time around here - rightly I think. Show me some notability; some recognition by others; some recognition that this site constitutes part of knowledge, and I will change my mind. As for the vanity, it seems clear to me that many of those who either wrote the article or supported it do not understand what Wikipedia is. I'm sorry but you saying it's notable or popular or great is not good enough. WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. Read it and re-write. Delete. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment To all the deleters why don't you make a list of information that you believe should be added to the page for it to stay. So it can help the members of the PS3forums to make it meet the Wikipedia standards of a page. Instead of making a quick judgement since a lot of don't have information the page ask those who do, like the members of the forum to help. Gamerman 9:49, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See WP:WEB. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 02:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment Stop posting that link say what you think is wrong. Since many sites have been named that have made reports on the PS3forums and couple of them have been address in this very page.Gamerman 10:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

comment - it's the first time I've posted that link, and I mentioned it along with the other policies because it clearly shows what must be demonstrated in the article. But I've already told you that. Bye. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:29, 12 April 2006

Comment But it isn't the first time somebody has posted here many people have cited it here. Then information was given discounting all the rules in that page. That is way I said stop posting it. Pages from joystig.com that have a link going to PS3Forums.com: [4] [5] Click the picture [6] Click the Picture and even a member of the forums gave some of the question in said article. Gamerman23:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Moe ε 18:11, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB etc. Sandstein 19:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment In all honesty, I believe all unofficial pages should be deleted. But since that will not happen, to delete this one and this one alone would be unfair. As said by others, the site itself is a large site, larger than other sites that have articles written about them. I also doubt that the site needs the advertisement, as it already had more than 10,000 users before the article was even created. I also agree, though, that the article itself contains little information on the site. However, there are plenty of articles on Wikipedia that contain even less information than this. I think it would be wrong to delete this when all this article needs is a little more information.Psa- 21:47, 12 April 2006

Comment Psa I have to agree with you that the page has very little information on it for now. Really all it needs is time for the members of PS3Forums (since they are the ones with the information at the moment) to add it to the page. Gamerman 9:09, 12 April 2006

KEEP im not going to hide, ive been a member for a year. why do you delete this! it deserves this at the least, its a great site not any others like it out there. it is not to promote the site, with how many members we have a growing we could care less about advertising! do you guys have any idea how many members are putting in their thought and trying their best to write thing to put up on the wiki site, they tried hard, did there best, and were very proud of there work, and happy the admin let them. then you go and delete it? now think of how they feel. come on it was being worked on, so you cant use the excuse "not enough info." its pure heartbreaking for all those members. and plus i see other sites on wiki that arent deleted and they are more promotional than anything. give them a chance!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/PS3Forums"

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.