Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/49erholics Anonymous

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 04:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 49erholics Anonymous

Internet forum with rather small membership compared to other forums on the net. Fails WP:WEB and reads like an advertisement. –– Lid^(Talk) 00:31, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Do Not Delete. I can't believe how stuck up everyone here seems to be. Who cares how many hits or users the site has- that shouldnt matter. Wikipedia isn't designed around things only catering to multi-million users/customers, thats silly. The article mentions other websites which could be considered 'rivals', so the advertisement aspect is out the window. I could hardly imagine how to write it with any less 'bias'. If you consider the site non-notable, then I consider your opinion non-notable as well- why? Because you're not 100000 people (where is the cutoff anyways, 100 people, 10000, 10000000?). Who can really make that call, its not fair.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jcarr8 (talk • contribs).— Jcarr8 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete. One page of Google hits, some from the site itself. Non-notable. eaolson 00:41, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• delete not notable per WP:WEB and also looks very ad crufty to me Benon 01:00, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Supermath 02:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, non-notable forum. Alexa ranking of 5,571[1].--TBCTaLk?!? 03:44, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Completely non-notable.UberCryxic 04:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn. —Khoikhoi 04:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 1000 members is nothing, and the article doesn't claim any sort of notability. Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:25, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN website/forum. +Fin- 13:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Benon. --Marwatt 13:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. as per Benon Trnj2000 14:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete all the way Daniel_123  ► ► 23:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

This is actually a very popular "underground" message board with ties to the "inside" of the 49ers front office. Usually with news released before the AP or the actual official web site. Also with its mentions to other sites, I dont think advertisement is the goal.— 68.98.120.85 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Okay - as the author of the article in question I'm a little irked by this. First of all, I just wrote it and planned on seeing how it looked and going back in to edit it to sound "less advertis-ish" around 5 minutes after I wrote it, but it had already been flagged for deletion and I couldn't edit it. Despite the fact that I seem to be advertising webzone and paradise more than the site itself...

Sorry it isn't GenMay or some massive conglomerate message board guys, but wiki has articles on the color of Tom Cruise's naval lint for God's sake... there isn't room for a small blurb about a reasonably popular underground message board? 1000 users is hardly "small" in my book, but that aside, the administrator of the board (who is not me) runs the message board in conjunction with a 49ers news site (49ersnews.com) that provides inside information on the team and its activities, and has on several occasions "scooped" stories about player signing, injuries, departures, hirings and other such events before the official site and other fan boards. I would have included that when I went in to edit that, but as I said, it was flagged for deletion so quickly I couldn't even retouch it to read better.

Oh, and don't even bother giving me that "possible single issue account" BS - I work at an intelligence agency and troll wiki for hours a day. If I see anything else left out, I'd add it. Trouble is, in my research, most of the things I'm looking for are already here, so I have no use for adding stupid BS. I just happened to look it up, and it wasn't there one day, so I decided to add it.

Man, what a giant crock if this gets deleted. I'd like to point out there are articles that are complete garbage about very insignificant things - and yet THIS of all articles gets deleted. Here's a couple: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navel_lint http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yo_momma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_stretching

...just to name a few...

This is so stupid - I think I'll find another online encyclopedia source to look stuff up in at work.

Matt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.250.23.200 (talk • contribs).

None of those are governed by WP:WEB and in their related criterion they pass. You can not rate article merits against articles that don't fall under the same umbrella criterion. There are articles that I myself didn't (at the time) feel needed articles such as Lonelygirl15 under WP:WEB, but this was later overturned due to her featuring in several periodicals. This article fails under this part of the guidelines: Even if an entire website meets the notability criteria, its components (forums, articles, sections) are not necessarily notable and deserving of their own separate article.. The website you keep referencing doesn't have an article itself so referring to it doesn't make sense. It's membership is very low as I can find forums with twice or five times the membership numbers and still not qualify for articles. I'm sorry if you feel that as navel lint gets its own article that the forum should too but there are rules and guidelines to wikipedia. –– Lid^(Talk) 09:09, 16 September 2006 (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.