Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JJB message board

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. Bucketsofg 03:21, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

JJB message board

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 majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages 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 votes. 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]}}

JJB message board (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article makes a claim of notability, that this message board is "The largest ezboard message board on the internet", but the source it cites does not seem to clearly support that claim, and the article otherwise lacks the multiple independent sources that would help it pass WP:WEB. FisherQueen (Talk) 18:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

They have since supported the claim. That should make you happy.

• Delete - vanity article about the goings-on of a bulletin board, lacks reliable sources needed for verification of claim (aside form a reference of coming in 19th out of 2000-some arbitrarily chosen boards) ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• No, they haven't "supported the claim". There still aren't multiple independent references in the article - the external links are to a hitcounter, a blog, a board archive and some "controversy" on the board. The article also needs fixing badly. The major section is all about "Member Controversies" which is patently unencyclopedic trivia and needs to go. To summarise, it needs referencing and a serious cleaning up, or Delete. EliminatorJR ^Talk 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Not seeing any legitimate references here.. SubSeven 01:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We're working on it! Don't be meenies :(

Sorry, the AfD procedure is often cold and impersonal. We're trying to be fair, but unless you provide several reliable sources to back up claims made in the article, it will probably be deleted. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 01:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We just added video evidence of JJB on Extra.

• don't delete they seem to be giving sources.
• Delete At present, there are no reliable sources. But, dont WP:STEAM this one; let it run and if no reliable sources are added, it will help against recreation. John Vandenberg 03:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I ran across this page when I reverted some vandalism done to it while patrolling recent changes. My sense is that this site is not notable enough to rate an encyclopedia entry. It may have been mentioned on an MTV reality show or a Hollywood gossip television tabloid, but I don't consider these to be particularly reliable sources. The evidentiary links seem to point to other non-notable message boards. I find that these lack credibility, as well. Also, I find the claims of "JJB Crazes" to be rather dubious. Liberal Classic 17:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The link that claims to reference that they're the largest board shows that they have the 22nd most page views; kinda shoots your argument in the foot there. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:30, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We didn't claim largest message board, we claimed largest EzBoard message board.

• • Comment You know what I meant. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete not only does this site fail WP:WEB, but it's also becoming a haven for spa vandals and blp problems. I just removed half of the page's content because it was unencyclopedic, vandalism, unattributable, non-neutral, or WP:BLP violations. 168.122.80.215 19:36, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable message board, even among message boards. --- RockMFR 05:48, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

And are you even qualified to make that statement?

• Delete per all the reasons already stated (non-notable, vanity, not sourced, etc). --pIrish 22:03, 2 March 2007 (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.