Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardboardia

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Woohookitty 07:29, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cardboardia

This article is about a messageboard with very little internet presence. The site itself seems to be down, and this journal makes me believe that it's down about as often as it's up. Joyous (talk) July 4, 2005 05:41 (UTC)

• Delete. I've followed this article since its creation, and it's on my Watchlist, so I've been keeping a close eye on the edits. I've slowly begun to suspect that it was just a "messageboard vanity page" for a non-notable Internet messageboard. I'm relatively certain that's a correct assessment. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 05:45 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable. 53 unique Googles and no Alexa data. Vanity. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Too many sock/meatpuppets. AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 4, 2005 05:48 (UTC)
• Delete notability not established. JamesBurns 4 July 2005 05:49 (UTC)
• Delete --Eliezer 4 July 2005 05:56 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a pity to kill so much work, but it's clearly not notable. Google search turns up few hits. This Wiki article in conjunction with entry on UrbanDictionary seem indicative of a tendancy towards self-aggrandizement on the part of Cardbordia's forum-goers. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)
• Keep. While I don't have a Wikipedia account, I am PokeDigiManiac, one of the contributors to the article, and I wanted to correct a few misapprehensions that the previous voters might have had. Directed to Joy Stovall, the site is not down currently; however, only registered members can access it, in order to protect from s and other malicious acts. Additionally, the reason that this journal seems to reflect it being down most often is because, as mentioned in the article itself, it generally only sees use when the site is down. This can be noted by looking at the dates of posts in said journal - they all cluster around certain dates or short periods of time where the site was experiencing difficulty. In terms of notability, I agree that it is a very difficult thing to establish. However, I will state that the message board currently has 580 members. Beyond that, I leave it to you to judge. Additionally, in response to the charges of self-aggrandizement, said urbandictionary article (The link was incorrectly posted; however, I have now found the article that I believe Fernando Rizo was referencing here) was created by two personally motivated members, and should not be taken as a representation of Cardboardia as a whole. This article under question on Wikipedia is an attempt to gather as much information as possible and form it into a clear and detailed explanation of just what inspires over five hundred people to form a community that has lasted over two years (a rarity on the Internet). In any case, thank you for your fair considerations. 68.7.209.76 4 July 2005 06:25 (UTC) — (68.7.209.76's 11th edit.)
• Very Strong Keep Seeing that this whole nomination for a deletion was because someone found The Live Journal Site, I wish to set something straight. The LiveJournal account for Cardboardia is a system used by the administrators to alert the Cardboardian Members of any problems with Cardboardia. For example, if Cardboardia suddenly went down without any notice, Members would post their worrys and the Administrators would be able to alert the members of the problem. Now, I also notice that people seem to think this is 'not notable enough' to be on wikipedia. Googling something won't give you exact results, so don't base your decision off of that.chlorine July 4, 2005 06:43 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
• Delete, self-promotion for an unnotable website.--nixie 4 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)
• Delete: about 200 Google hits, about 600 members, no Alexa ranking: notability not established. Sietse 4 July 2005 07:26 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable enough. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 07:44 (UTC)
  • Comment: I wish to know what your ideas of 'not notable ennough' are. Not notable to you? I hope you don't think that, just because you ran a google search, you believe it to be not notable enough? Have you done any true research on this topic, or have you jumped to conclusions? I have read other replys, and they give a very indepth reason for their vote to delete. If you are going to vote to permanently delete this, then put some good reason into it. That is all I ask. chlorine July 4, 2005 08:43 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
    • My reasons are the same as the rest. I agree with them, and saying any more would be redundant. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC) ref.
• Keep (Note, after reading the guidelines under votes for deletion I wish to point out that I am the Guesty Type Personification that authored half the article from my school's IP address of 203.87.121.161. This statement is not designed to call myself an authority on the subject or of the site, it is merely to avoid being called a sockpuppet) This site's guidelines for what constitutes a vanity article state 'An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous.' therefore google hits and alexa rankings seem irrelevant in this case. The aforementioned Urban Dictionary post seems to be a purely promotional entry by two overenthusiastic members out of approximately 600 and should not be taken as an example of all of us. The article itself is more informative than advertising. As Urban Dictionary has to guidelines as to self promotion that are readily enforced or advertised, posters feel free to enter whatever they feel and as such I would propose that the urban dictionary entry is irrelevant to this case. Considering the fact that the guidelines of Wikipedia state that a lack of fame is not indicative of a vanity article I would consider this article within the guidelines as the article states information but apart from some in-jokes meant purely sarcastically or as easter eggs for those members who would read this it is not saying whether the site is good or bad, merely describing the facts of its existance and history.--Guesty Type Personification 4 July 2005 18:04 (+9.5GMT) — (Moff's 8th edit.)
• Delete. JFW | T@lk 4 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
• Delete. There's millions of sites out there with more than 600 members and this one isn't any more important than the rest of them. Wikipedia is not a webdirectory. - Mgm|^(talk) July 4, 2005 10:33 (UTC)
  • Comment There is no 'Wikipedia is not a webdictionary' section so I assume that you mean Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Under that guideline, Wikipedia negates entries that are dictionary definitions, Lists of such definitions or usage, slang or idiom guides. This entry fits none of those criteria. The point about various other sites with more than 600 members not having entries is superfluous. Unless you can site examples where a site in our situation has tried to get an article on Wikipedia and been rejected, the point does not count.--Moff
    • See this section. --Alex12 3 4 July 2005 12:44 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:VAIN. Radiant_>|< July 4, 2005 11:42 (UTC)
• Very weak keep and ruthlessly edit. The parts about what Cardboardia actually is could be considered somewhat notable. That's about 1/3 of the article. The rest (fictional history and whatnot) are not notable. Also, the tone of the article sounds like something from an online message board, not an encyclopedia. Bubamara 4 July 2005 11:49 (UTC)
  • I did some of that ruthless editing. It could sure use some real content. Bubamara 4 July 2005 12:11 (UTC)
• Delete, even after the edits. WP:NOT a webdirectory and esp not for non-notable sites.-Splash July 4, 2005 12:26 (UTC)
• Put it in a cardboardia box and ship it back where it came from. Delete RoySmith 4 July 2005 16:07 (UTC)
• Keep Okay, this is Hika, Supreme Ruler of the Universe and Admin of Cardboardia. While, obviously, I kind of am biased, I vote to Keep the Cardboardia article. For one thing, Cardboardia isn't just some stupid little message board. Okay, yeah, we have a measley 600 members, and we're not "notable" because we don't turn up enough hits on Google, or whatever. But among it's members, Cardboardia has evolved into it's own little culture - and while that culture might not even be on the radar for most, for its members, Cardboardia's a freakin' way of life. Where else can a topic that merely states the time of day turn into a thread about boobs, and most recently, pajamas? We have Wars (Podima Wars I, II, III, IV, V, that one war VZG had against the sun, the Darkeru war that got covered up...), invasions, marriages, children (so many children!), and HOLIDAYS. Holy hell, we have "national" holidays. Not only that, but through SEVERAL bouts of extreme drama, including a majorly bad , a fight between myself and Keru, several of the older members up and leaving, and personal dramas of its members, Cardboardia has held through for almost three years (the original Pub having been started in August 2002). And while all of this certaintly doesn't make Cardboardia bigger or more notable, it does make it extremely UNIQUE. All of us Cardboardians are a family (through the several marriages and, y'know, figuratively speaking). There's a little thread that holds all of us together, and it will for the rest of our lives. Cardboardia's a big thing for most of us, and even though I know I won't be around Cardboardia forever, chances are I'm not going to forget it. It's almost like one of those shows/books/movies where kids find a portal to some totally awesome dimension - a world all their own. To us, it's like that. And really, you can't call this whole thing "shameless self promotion" - most Cardboardians, and ESPECIALLY ME, tend to be suspicious of "newbies." In fact, if no one ever came to the board again except those that existed already, I'd be perfectly happy. Who wants new blood when you got a great group of people already? No, we aren't looking to pimp Cardboardia... at least, not to get us tons of new members. We just want an article on Wikipedia. Is that so much to ask? — (Unsigned comment by Hika; user's 1st edit.)
  • It's a great history you wrote; I think the only complaints of the Wikipedians here is that it is more appropriate on an About Cardboardia page on your own website, not on Wikipedia—a sentiment with which I am inclined to agree. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 16:29 (UTC)
• Delete Oliver Keenan July 4, 2005 19:06 (UTC)
• Delete nn RasputinAXP 4 July 2005 19:08 (UTC)
• Comment: As the user Aaron Hill once said: We have articles about schools of 500 kids, so can't we have articles about a 600 member messageboard? I feel the need to quote from the Wikipedia guide to voting for deletion. Because, clearly, you still don't understand.Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional You don't have to vote on every nomination; even consider not participating if:
  • A nomination involves a topic of which you are ignorant;
  • Consensus you agree with has already been formed. Chlorine July 4, 2005 19:07 (UTC) — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
• Delete, not notable. Oy vey. Dcarrano July 4, 2005 19:16 (UTC)
• Comment The 'ruthless edit' has completely foregone the point of the article. It was about the culture and history of the people, not the layout of the board. We don't need to read an article on board layout, we wrote it to put our culture there, the stuff that has been left after said edit completely misses the point and makes the article look like a vanity page moreso than what our original article was. I agree the fictional history might not belong on Wikipedia but the rest of history, the rest of culture should not have been deleted.
  • I agree that it wasn't my most nuanced bit of editing. But count the votes here, Cardboardians - this page is about to be deleted unless it changes drastically. Please edit it to reflect wikipedia's standard of quality. See the Talk:Cardboardia page for more comments. Bubamara 4 July 2005 22:00 (UTC)
    • We would, see, but everything keeps being deleted. Hika
  • Comment The only people who are likely to come to Wikipedia for information about Cardbordian "culture" are Cardbordians. This article fits the definition of vanity if only because the only people who are aware of the subject are the subjects themselves. Fernando Rizo 4 July 2005 23:18 (UTC)
  • It's a good piece of culture, but why not put it on your website instead of on Wikipedia? It would probably be much more useful there, anyway. – Mipadi July 4, 2005 23:26 (UTC)
• Delete 53 Google hits and a side of meatpuppets makes this non-notable. Xoloz 5 July 2005 04:43 (UTC)
  • Comment 'Meatpuppet has two meanings. A) the male genetalia, B) An 80's punk band. I assume you mean sockpuppet(comment by anon user:60.231.225.2)
    • "Sockpuppet" assumes that one person creates many usernames and votes through them. Since now there seems to be many physical members of the board that come here to vote, that is analogous to recruiting your friends to register in order to vote for you, hence "meatpuppetry" - Skysmith 8 July 2005 08:29 (UTC)
• Delete, not a webdirectory/ .:.Jareth.:. ^babelfish July 5, 2005 05:46 (UTC)
• Delete - definitely vanity (from multiple sources), no significance outside its own circle, one of the thousands of small-scale web boards with their own subculture. I am sure you may be close circle of friends, but that is not so unusual, either - every other similar web-based group can make the same claim. And; I wouldn't support inclusion of all the schools, but even they are more significant - Skysmith 5 July 2005 09:11 (UTC)
• Delete Only people voting keep are the ones using the website. Your own little corner of the world is important to you, yes, but it doesn't make it encyclopedia material. The various "This is about my website, don't delete it" votes don't help the case. Friday 6 July 2005 01:54 (UTC)
• Delete. Organisational tables of self-selecting fan-fic communes are not encyclopedic. The subject is insufficiently culturally different from miniscule fan-fic communes in general to be of encyclopedic note. Hurrah for the communally based onanism of rich Westerners. Wank that lit. Fifelfoo 6 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)
• Keep It's an interesting article on a very unique topic. Furthermore, I know of several TOWNS that are less notable than this website. (Population of 10 and 4 Google hits excluding three-word references.) I think it's worth keeping. Besides, what harm could it do? Calime July 8, 2005 11:11 (UTC)
  • Comment I was going to stay out of this one, but I can't pass that up. A town is a physical object and will persist even if everyone who lived there gots up and walked away. It has a continued presence seperate from it's population. Thus a town of five hundred in much more notable than a messageboard of five hundred. and I would vote to delete a town of that size that was in no other way notable without a second thought. Because, "what harm can it do" misses some important points:
    • Noise will chase out signal. Every junk trivial article takes up space on search results pages, editor's time, and even an almost (but not quite) insignificant space on a disk. This is an encyplopedia, and should function as such.
    • There are forms, conventions, guidelines... ok rules although we don't like to use that word. This article and this discussion ignores those guidelines.

Read the writing on the wall, or insert your own cliché here. Please, just let this die with no further fuss. ADB 9 July 2005 06:05 (UTC)

• Very Strong Keep It is of my strongest belief that you should keep this page because it is not a vanity page. A vanity page would be something like, "LOOKATME! I'MWONDERFUL! JOINORDIE, plzkthxbai!" And you say that we use "meatpuppetry" to try and save our article. We don't need "meatpuppetry". What kind of Cardboardians would we be if we did not try and defend ourselves? We Cardboardians are trying to share our culture and history with the rest of the world, and we cannot even begin to if the article is deleted. Many of the people who have said "delete" do not even know what Cardboardia is truly like. And many, I'm sure, have said "delete" because of what 'evidence' that previous people have given. It sickens me to see the world in such a state that those who try to share their messageboard's unique atmosphere with other people cannot. I implore you to keep the article. It is a true diamond in the rough. ArtemisSakura July 8, 2005 09:21 (UTC)
  • User has three edits, two in this VFD and recently-created user page - Skysmith 9 July 2005 18:26 (UTC)
• Comment I believe the 'Not notable enough' votes should be excluded, because it had been established that by Wikipedia rules, that an entry doesn't have to be notable to be on wikipedia. — (Comment by 24.136.194.95 and/or Chlorine, who seem to be the same person, and both of whom have 12 or fewer edits.)
  • On the contrary; votes from very new users are instead discounted as a general rule.AиDя01DTALKEMAIL July 9, 2005 18:08 (UTC)
    • Not if they are by the author of the page. As far as I know, there were four authors to this page before the ruthless edit. Chlorine, Flippancy, Pokedigimaniac and myself(Moff). A couple of which haven't had accounts before they made the article in question, thus the lack of edits. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers

Comment The critera by which something can be declared "not notable" apply to personal biographies, musical groups and webcomics. Thus any attempt to apply these criterea to this article is inherently flawed.

• No Vote. No link means we can't look it up... Almafeta 17:06, 12 July 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.