Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Planet Rugby Chat Forum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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. - Mailer Diablo 03:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Planet Rugby Chat Forum

Article on obscure chat forum JoaoRicardo 04:38, 8 December 2005 (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]}}

This chat forum gets thousands of hits per day and millions of hits per year. Many posters spend hours there every day. Two posters have dated after meeting on the forum, and one poster went to stay with another as an exchange student. It is much like a sitcom, but very real. Josecuervo

This article has to stay. The bored is an important part of people's lives and it deserves recognition for the sheer comedy value. The characters on it should go more recognition and Wikipedia can provide that.CalebRalph

  • Delete - Another forum with no particular claim to encyclopedicity. FCYTravis 05:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


This is a good link for someone who doesn't think it has a claim to encyclopedicity: http://www.geocities.com/quentinpoulsenandfriends/home.html

Josecuervo

Travis has no sense of humour. TheRalph

  • Delete. The article as it is lacks merit. If it were to be kept, it should be kept as Planet Rugby. In order to be kept, it would need to meet WP:WEB. The article is forum board trivia but it is interesting to see that a journalist called Waratah Fitzsimons is supposedly a contributor. That would be Peter FitzSimons who played rugby for NSW and Australia and would indicate that the forum is more notable than the article suggests. However, the socks are persuading me to delete. Capitalistroadster 05:24, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The Brian Moore link is interesting and improves the verifiability but what I am after is evidence of its wider influence on rugby. Capitalistroadster 16:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist,

Former Lions and England hooker Brian Moore posts on the forum and it is suspected that journalist Stephen Jones posts there as well. It has also been quoted during rugby events such as the 2005 Lions tour as an example of what the fans though. Josecuervo

  • If you can show verifiable evidence of this, I and others could be persuaded to change our votes. At the moment, we have a lot of new people casting votes with no evidence and attacking Wikipedians of good standing. I would also recommend a change to Planet Rugby and provide verifiable evidence of its significance by mentioning its significance in the rugby world. Capitalistroadster 05:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

"Planet Rugby Chat Forum is the infamous messageboard of Planetrugby.com." Is that enough evidence to suggest it is legitimate. **** TheRalph

  • What we are looking for is verifiability ie third party accounts from reputable sources of its influence on rugby. We are also looking for some sort of indication of notability under WP:WEB such as :
  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention:
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

We are not interested in statements that x is a troll or y is an admin. What we are looking for is verifiable evidence that significant people in the rugby world contribute to the forum or that it has an impact on rugby as a sport. Capitalistroadster 06:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete Alexa ranking of 29,997 , just 7000 registered members and only 2700 have ever made a post. Actual article no real useful content. SimonLyall 07:14, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Capitalist do you have a life? seriously. Type Planet Rugby Forum into google and see how many hits that come up (over 2,000,000). New Zealand All Blacks Rugby coach Graham Henry has posted on the forum, legendary Australian coach Rod Macqueen, Brian Moore (BCM), Stephen Jones (Southern Softie), If those people aren't significant then I don't know who is. If you don't believe me then check it out for yourself. TheRalph

    • Those men are indeed significant. However, I would need verifiable evidence such as links to the forum posts made by significant rugby figures in order to change my mind that the forum does not meet our criteria. User Simon Lyall has presented evidence that they fail to meet two of the three criteria under WP:WEB. Capitalistroadster 08:19, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete NN chatcruft, insignificant and unencyclopedic. Eusebeus 08:29, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The article reads like vanity and POV, and as per Capitalistroadster, the article does NOT demonstrate that the forum has had any impact outside its own user community, NOR does it provide evidence of having been quoted in the media, NOR does it provide evidence of having been used by the famous rugby celebrities mentioned by Josecuervo. To quote this line from the article: "A poster named Hippo also needs to keep his trap clapped." Says everything really. Zunaid 09:41, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

People criticising the site aren't getting their facts straight. Planet Rugby chat forum has 5816 users and over 700,000 posts. I take it that none of you have actually visited. I am also very interested in the Rowan Quinn biz. I take it you all are colleagues of hers Quisling

Honestly, what harm is there in this for one. Secondly what is the point in deleting something that nobody really checks on. Finally, it has its place. Wikpedia has become a social encylopedia where people search for things that are not only obscure and bizzare, but with the current trends and a history on something you will not find in your Britannica's and Funk n Wagnalls. It should stay for the fact that somebody has spent time to write it, have a laugh and allow people to voice an opinion, point of view, whatever. If you start silencing things as inane and trival such as this; when will it stop??? (Note: this previously unsigned comment made by LachlanG on 13:54, 8 December 2005 and moved from top of page to here for readability by me.) Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Should be saved, it's a large forum which has grown loved by the people that frequent it, I ask you: how can musicianforums have an entry and not this?

It should certainly be indexed on Wikipedia. There are some very useful threads that run here too - there are enlightening law discussions following major games, and more often than not it is possible to follow a game in realtime because some dedicated individuals post regular updates as they happen. This is very useful to rugby devotees who live in countries with little or no rugby traditions, such as Thailand, China, and Australia. Steenbras

  • Comment: "Useful", "enlightening", "loved by the people that frequent it", "being able to follow games in almost-realtime" does not make it encyclopaedic. Yes, Wikipedia is not paper, but it is an encyclopedia, and as such subjects have to satisfy certain criteria to merit articles, which this doesn't. Zunaid 13:30, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok why not clean it up to make it further encyclopedic? It should be kept, it can be useful for people since this is indeed the biggest rugby forum on the internet that doesn't contain one-eyed bias.Girvan Dempsey

Members of the forum have led campaigns to get rid of current England coach Andy Robinson. Former Sprinbok media adivisor Mark Keohane quotes the website in his web blog keo.co.za. A poster on his site played a part in the decision of Clyde Rathbone to switch to Australia from South Africa. The forum is good for fans in Istanbul and Yemen Alicia the Mousa Tamer


Definition of Encyclopedia from Dictionary.com "Encyclopedia

n : a reference work (often in several volumes) containing articles on various topics (often arranged in alphabetical order) dealing with the entire range of human knowledge or with some particular specialty" There you go this site relates to human knowledge about the game of Rugby Union and spite. Alicia the Mousa Tamer

May i suggest, to those who wish to preserve this pagem that their best strategy is to enlist a leading member of the cabal to their cause: basically, if the Wiki-Cabal want your page dead, it is dead; if they approve of you, then no-one will ever actually get to delete what you write, so long as you stay Inside the Rules (qv).

--SockpuppetSamuelson 14:03, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete nn forum vanity, and a particularly awful example of it too. In addition, the whole PlaneyRugby site has an [Alexa rank of 179,966 and note that figure is for the entire site, not just the forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: There seem to be a lot of users who only started contributing today (Josecuervo, Alicia the Mousa Tamer, Quisling, Girvan The Swerve, LachlanG, Steenbras), some of whose only contributions are to this debate. A word of advice to the newcomers: meatpuppets are generally frowned upon, and on issues such as this their voices carry comparatively little weight compared to people who have been contributing for a long time. See this AfD debate for an excellent example of severe meat puppetry and how it fails to influence decisions if, and I stress, IF the supporters for the article being kept do not argue coherently and do not motivate for keeping the article by citing the various Wikipedia policies and guidelines or by demonstrating that the article does meet those policies or guidelines. Zunaid 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Zunaid - I appreciate the positive nature of your post. I would like to make the point that all of the new users that you list are genuine, unique posters on PR forum. I think that 'meatpuppets' refers to multiple personas from just one person? I would argue that the entry for the PR chat forum be retained as it is a very real entity and therefore its entry may be of some reference value to users of wikipedia. The arguments against retention appear to be more based in a general disdain for message boards in general. PR forum is quite obscure, I will certainly concede that much, but surely obscurity is the raison d'etre of an encyclopedia? Girvan The Swerve 14:34, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Planet Rugby itself doesn't have an article, or I might have suggested a paragraph be added to that article about the forum. and Comment for Girvan the Swerve: meatpuppets are a bit different from sockpuppets, at least in Wikipedia usage of the terms. Sockpuppets are alias accounts for the same person. Meatpuppets usually refers to real separate individuals who have been brought to Wikipedia solely to participate on one side of a discussion. CarbonCopy 14:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment Thanks for that Carbon Copy. I realise now that I am guilty of meatpuppetry, but with the sincerest possible motives. I think the general concensus is to delete the entry for planet rugby chat forum and add a new entry for planet rugby with a reference to the chat forum. Girvan The Swerve 14:58, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Multiple personas from one person are sock puppets. From the sock puppet article:

    A meat puppet is a variation of a sock puppet; a new internet community member account is created by another person at the request of a user solely for the purposes of influencing the community on a given issue or issues.

    You have to concede that the current situation is almost exactly the definition of a meat puppet; it looks as if new members are being recruited on some sort of "save this article" campaign. Obscure does not = non-encyclopedic, but unimportant/unreferenced/non-notable does. The article isn't up for deletion because the topic is obscure, it's up for deletion because the article itself fails to assert the notability of the subject. This does not neccessarily mean that the subject isn't notable, just that the article doesn't provide evidence that it is. If you really want to save this article then take heed of the suggestions being made here: include references to the media, provide evidence that famous rugby players post there, demonstrate that the site has influenced some aspect of the game or society, show that the forum has been cited in a newspaper or other published medium. If the forum really has done that then I'm quite sure it is notable, but the article doesn't provide any evidence of this, see what I'm saying? Maybe the article doesn't do the topic justice. Heaven knows it's in a god-awful state at the moment. So rewrite the article, and maybe, just maybe, you can save it from deletion. What could then happen is that people here would re-read the improved article and hopefully change their votes because of the improvement. Zunaid 15:23, 8 December 2005 (UTC) (That's enough rambling from me, I'm off home, will catch up on this tomorrow.)
  • Delete no assertion that the site meets WP:WEB. If someone can prove that they do, then I'll happily change my vote. --Bachrach44 15:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Brian Moore, former England international rugby player, former Lions player and current BBC rugby commentator/pundit is a regular contributor to the board. Here is his profile, see for yourselves. http://forum.planet-rugby.com/index.php?t=usrinfo&id=2736&rid=&S=600a610ee64e5f9111412846095b3a3d . In addition, the planet rugby chat forum was recently mentioned in a letter to the Sunday Times (London) as a result of its campaign to remove rugby columnist Stephen Jones. Girvan The Swerve (This comment moved here by me from the top of this page. Posts read top to bottom with newer posts below. Your comment will probably be missed by most people who only look for the latest posts near the bottom of the page.) Zunaid


  • I am no sockpuppet. You guys really like to throw the book at people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Girvan Dempsey (talk • contribs) 09:47, December 8, 2005. (user's third edit)


Can I just ask again how Musicianforums or Mx Forums has a Wikipedia entry? I'd be very surprised if it is half as influential as the world's prime rugby forum.Peter Stringer

Peter - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Musicianforums. I cant find an articvle for MX forums. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete article and transfer salvageable content into Planet Rugby. By itself does not meet WP:WEB. Agnte 17:35, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


  • Just have to say this place is a beauraucratic nightmare.
    • No, it's an encyclopaedia. The concept is often an alien one to people used to discussion fora. Wikipedia is not a discussion forum. It is an encyclopaedia. On discussion fora, there is no requirement for providing the means for readers to check what one writes. Here, there is an absolute requirement. If you want to provide an argument to keep this article, you must cite sources to demonstrate that this forum has come to the attention of the rest of the world enough that the rest of the world has published things about it. Point to the independently sourced "in depth" magazine articles, third-party guides and FAQs, significant press coverage, or books that have been written about it. Uncle G 00:19, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I believe that everyone should be given a fair go and this includes Planet Rugby Chat Forum. You wikipedians are behaving like a bunch of stuck up, obnoxious imbeciles. Clearly seem them as a threat. As you know I have no time for dickheads and their ramblings on. Get back to your shitty. jobs. It is a free country, you know. I'm Sam Kekovich.

Comment: The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. A subversive attempt to keep the content alive? It certainly seems so. To Sam Kekovich, Wikipedia is not about giving everyone a "fair go". It is an encyclopedia. Read the criticisms people have been posting, you'll see they are mostly constructive and show a clear way in which this article can be saved. Zunaid 06:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


Zunaid no kidding it is an encyclopedia you have mentioned this several times like a broken record your keyboard is. Everyone is entilted to publish their articles on here so go jump you flippin imbecile. You are what is bad with this world. You seem to place your views above everyone elses. How about you take a hike, the world could do without your types. Time for a beer. I'm Sam Kekovich.

  • Delete The Planet Rugby page is almost an exact duplicate of the Planet Rugby Chat Forum article. Therefore Delete the chat forum article, and Improve the Planet Rugby page. JanesDaddy 16:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, very notable per Zunaid. Stifle 00:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambi 11:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. nn, poorly written, about insignificant web "bored" Ronabop 04:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete per website's tactics. --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 16:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
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_Planet_Rugby_Chat_Forum_3997.html"