Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/7chan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 dele7e. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 7chan

Non-notable board, per original invalid CSD. [Check Google hits] Deleted twice, once for attack, once as nonsense. I abstain as this is an administrative nom. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

  • I don't see why previous deletions should punish me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lordvervex (talk • contribs) .
    • They don't. But they establish a relevant history of the article. Note that both deletions are recent. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Can't this be speedied? TheRingess 06:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Not the regular way, no. It's not part of the criteria. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable ripoff. Danny Lilithborne 06:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons Danny stated above.--andrew 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I understand your point but were they just spam? I want a real artical. Lordvervex 06:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Do Not Delete. If one of the basis' for deleting this article is that the site is a "non-notable ripoff", then why is 4chan still here, as it is a ripoff of 2chan? Notable is in the eye of the beholder really, people who frequent this site may believe it's notable. I don't think the creating user's past should come into play here, and if it does I'll gladly look over the article and repost it myself. Tempestdevil 06:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • The difference, though, is that 4chan is notable. 278,000 google hits compared to 600. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - fails WP:WEB. A look at the google search brings up blogs and other wikis, no real articles. --Daniel Olsen 06:41, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Google does not bring it up because it has only recently gained popularityLordvervex 06:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Which is why most people here would consider it inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • point taken is there a time limit to when things are "appropriate" or do I just create an artical every week?Lordvervex 06:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Here I refer you to WP:WEB again. (|-- UlTiMuS 06:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
      • I do not know of any imageboard that fit that criteria. Lordvervex 06:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete At first I thought that this was appropriate, to create an article on 7chan. On second thought I can see now that it was a bad decision given Wikipedia's policies for notability. I submit that I should have tried harder to make myself aware of such policies before thinking I could just jump in. "Ripoff" is however a completely bogus basis on which this article should be deleted.--Mars 012 07:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • It is indeed. Uncle G 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I guess I lose...Next time a poor guy makes this just post the "criteria" first and save him some time. Lordvervex 07:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Very strong delete, fails WP:WEB (it's not 2chan or 4chan). Also contains unencyclopedic original research. Potential vandal magnet. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 07:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, not that it will help, as they will just make new one. Stronger measures? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.51.254.240 (talk • contribs) .
    • There's the protected delete, which prevents recreation without admin intervention. (|-- UlTiMuS 07:45, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • This isn't "just a rip" I am a "channer". I have visited many image boards, (IIchan, Fchan, 4chan, Zchan, Renchan, 420chan ext.) and I can say that this is an important movement.Lordvervex 07:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Then please cite sources to demonstrate that the WP:WEB criteria are satisfied. If the web site is, as you claim, important, there will be many people independent of the site publishing things about it. Uncle G 09:32, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions. -- GOOO 08:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:WEB, verifiability, no reliable sources, and all of the unusual forum problems, such as no content of interest to anyone not already familiar with the forum. Random sample: "A CRITICAL HIT!! Throw rock." Ohh, I see. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Rob (Talk) 12:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Alexa ranking of 1,000,000+ for this website. --Xyzzyplugh 13:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • References added —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.39.114.92 (talk • contribs) .
  • For everyone's amusement, here is the "reference": [1]. Are you kidding me? (|-- UlTiMuS 03:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Heh. I totally had to WP:BJAODN that one. (|-- UlTiMuS 03:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • We are notable for that right?Lordvervex 03:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - Before this deletion, I had no idea "imageboards" exist. If in six months, or more, the "up and coming" site you speak of is going to be such a hit, then you could make it. --andrew 04:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • You make a very good point almost no imageboard fit's in the criteria laid down by wikipedia, but this sight has had almost 100,000 posts in the 7 days it's been up

Lordvervex 04:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete So let me get this straight: an imageboard that was opened less than a week ago, somewhat incomprehensible contents if you're never heard of imageboards before (and somewhat incomprehensible if you have), the only "reference" is a random web page with a vague statement, and a BJAODN where that was copied? I have to say that so far, there's no justification at hand why this site should warrant an article of its own. Welcome back when they're actually famous. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Eek, I should only read stuff when I'm on coffee actually. I welcome myself to this year. =) Still, I can find no proof of notability either way. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 13:03, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Not notable, so delete. FairHair 17:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikifur has an article on it already. 64.34.168.70 19:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Please delete this rubbish. AndyJones 19:40, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough. Plus the article is a copy and paste of this wiki's article based on earlier editing dates. Anomo 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
  • They are the same because we worked together as a website for the information. If you want me to rewrite it I will, that is NOT a good reason for deletion.68.39.114.92 06:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • 68.39.114.92 you go around vandalizing the place removing even references to where the material was copy and pasted from. That's against the rules. Anomo 06:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. --Credema 06:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • commentI am glad this isn't a vote 68.39.114.92 07:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment 7chan deserves an article, but wikipedia has this WP:WEB that is really picky about websites. 4chan has a huge traffic ranking. While google is against 7chan. See google-watch.org as it explains it. Right now 7chan needs server upgrades to handle the load so it can go faster. Anomo 07:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as original research with heavy doses of vanity. The references that are given are not reliable or verifiable, elwiki, or are a joke. There is also no evidence of notability outside of the website. --TheFarix (Talk) 22:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete non-notable, fails at Alexa Rating and google hits, Original Research, unsourced, extremely poorly written, seriously, I see no reason why this article SHOULDN'T be deleted. -Nightmare X 22:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete not notable enough yet and per Anomo's comment (i.e., taken from Tredpedia, although it could be rewritten it's still not notable enough). -AlexJohnc3 My Talk Page 00:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEPMy kitten just died, I have only have two reasons I am still alive, lot's of pills the docter gave me and this artical. You want my blood on your hands? Lordvervex 05:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
check my username - it wouldn't show up on my hands - Blood red sandman 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (-original research+vanity)66.74.146.125 08:01, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Strng Delete per the million and one reasons above - Blood red sandman 15:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge Yes, I said merge. Into the 4chan article. It's pretty obvious to me really. 4chan is quite notable. Pretty much any anime/game fan who uses the internet reguarly has at least heard of it, from my experiance. 7chan is a spin off, and a mention of it as part of 4chan's history, from what I'm reading, seems like the best course of action. IF, of course, the case is actually true as written. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 11:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable, it's a couple of dozen 4channers who got angry at the mods actually doing something. --Guess Who 00:47, 5 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.