Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accelerated Evolution Forum

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. Resistance is futile! - Mailer Diablo 01:40, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Accelerated Evolution Forum

Alexa has no traffic rank for this forum. Delete per that. JHMM13 (T | C) 03:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone 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 among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

• Keep, it's an important forum, has been featured many times on major news networks such as CNN, MSNBC. As well as many shows such as: 60 Minutes, Late Night With Conan O' Brien, The Daily Show, The History Channel..ect. As well as many magazines such as Time, Time Germany, YM, Seventeen, National Geographic. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.253.92.226 (talk • contribs) 04:02, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Could you cite some references?  — TheKMan^talk 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Yes.

www.cnn.com, www.historychannel.com www.conanobrien.com www.msnb.com www.accelerated-e.com www.60minutes.com www.time.com www.ym.com www.seventeen.com www.nationalgeo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.253.92.226 (talk • contribs)

• Please do not make claims you cannot backup. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 04:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy. A7: a totally non-notable group of people. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: cannot be speedied since NN assertion is disputed. — TheKMan^talk 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable, and no proof of notability. Six unique hits on Google, and no Alexa traffic rank. — TheKMan^talk 04:23, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about our web forum being featured on any major news network - but we are a break off community of Anime Nation's forums (http://www.animenation.net/forums,) one of the most important forums in the online anime community. It created quite a drama when we made our break, and soon after than Anime Nation completely revamped its forums. Anime Nation is documented on Wikipedia, so I see no reason our community shouldn't be as well. -- Vampy Chan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.19.32 (talk • contribs)

Could you post any actual proof that this forum was featured on any news network? See Wikipedia:Notability (websites) for Wikipedia guidelines to website notability. Thanks. — TheKMan^talk 04:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I've dedicated my life to the war on terror, and this is the thanks I get? Please. All I ask is for a little Christmas spirit, fellas. -- Coop {{unsigned|24.124.118.11}

Yes, we'll admit it. We don't wear capes. We aren't covered 24/7 on the telivision. But, God darnit' I love these people and I fought for my country. This forum ain't no forum, its a fo-you-um, you know what I mean? Just add us. You won't regret it. - Coops —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.124.118.11 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but here on Wikipedia we cherish our abstract nouns. We don't attack them. Delete with prejudice. Sheesh! Who are these guys, and which planet do they think they're running? GeorgeStepanek\^talk 04:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• You know, following Vampy's logic, we could put an addition to the Animenation page. In fact, I will do this presently. -- Ceraziefish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.21.254 (talk • contribs)

• Comment: exactly. It is a much more appropriate place to put the contents of this article in dispute. --Phanton 04:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into AnimeNation as a new section. Only one year old, almost no google hits and not enough unique content. It is more related to the history of the AnimeNation forums rather than something which can stand as an article by itself. --Phanton 04:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: other than the fact that the AE forum was created by former users and used by banned members of AnimeNation forums, there really isn't much of a connection between the two. — TheKMan^talk 05:01, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable forum. As much as I respect soldiers, the real issue on trial here is the merit of the article (and not its author!) -- Megamix^? 05:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, as I find the story of how this forum split from a large and well known one interesting, and wouldn't like a bunch of people to delete it just because THEY don't think it's worth reading. =) (Also, not having a traffic rank on Alexa means absolutely nothing, and has nothing to do with Wikipedia). Samurai_Drifter 05:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)Samurai Drifter
  • See WP:WEB. -- Megamix^? 05:37, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Actually, Alexa rankings have got quite a lot to do with Wikipedia. If you would look at our guidelines for website notability, you would see point #3 under "General guidelines for websites" which states: "A website's impact can be demonstrated by...(h)aving an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better." Alexa rankings are generally accurate when they are taken outside of specifics. One can't honestly argue that one website is more visited than another simply because it is ranked a few spots ahead of another, but the difference between 10,000 and "No rank" (as your website has) is several million websites. Wikipedia doesn't even have 1,000,000 articles yet, and no more than 2-3% of those are websites. So getting above ~30,000 is an achievement, but still not notable enough for this website. Those are the guidelines to which we adhere for various reasons (for example, check out "Wikipediea is not infinite"). JHMM13 (T | C) 05:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Merge, as this is an important part of the history of AnimeNation, which already has a Wikipedia entry. Samurai_Drifter
  • Comment: I'm wary of an inclusion into AnimeNation. While AnimeNation may have been important to AE, I don't see it that way when reversed. Accelerated Evolution has no Alexa data, 6 Google hits, and 93 registered users. — TheKMan^talk 05:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Before the board crashed two months ago, it had 300+ members, most of whom left the AnimeNation forums. It led to considerable changes on the AN forums, including the changing of moderators, updated policies regarding linking to other sites, and even deletion of large sections of the AN forums. I am a 2+ year member of AN, and I would consider it the single most important thing that happened on those forums while I have been there. - Samurai_Drifter
    • The AnimeNation article doesn't even mention its forum community, though, so I'm not sure how to proceed with a merge. Since you seem to be AN veterans, would any of you mind writing a short section on the history of AN's forum community in the main AnimeNation article? As long as it doesn't unbalance the entire article... -- Megamix^? 06:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I for one wouldn't mind at all; as it's one of the most important forums in the online anime community it definitely deserves a section in the Wikipedia entry. I'll get some other AN members to contribute, and if it succeeds this can be easily merged. Samurai_Drifter
  • Comment: Please do not vote more than once. Is it a keep or a merge? Also, please refer to Wikipedia's guideline's for inclusion or deletion as linked above instead of debating the importance of the website. This is not a debate on the philosophical or sociological importance of AE Forum, it is a "trial" by user consensus to see if it passes our already agreed-upon guidelines. By all accounts, this website doesn't deserve inclusion into any article on Wikipedia. You can argue the guidelines and policies on their respective talk pages for future deletions. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 06:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment "Please do not vote more than once." Odd, according to the notification at the top of this page I could have sworn that this was not a vote. However, I chose the option "merge" and deleted my first comment. "By all accounts, this website doesn't deserve inclusion into any article on Wikipedia." Obviously not all accounts, as I see at least several Keeps and Merges on this page. Not to mention, an article that is relevant to an established entry deserves at the very least a mention in said article. Samurai_Drifter
    • Comment: I'm sorry, my terminology was a bit off, especially for a user new to this process. I understand that this is technically not a "vote," but administrators need to come along to these AfD candidates later on, and it only confuses things for them when you put up multiple bolded suggestions for the article. I also said "By all accounts..." when I probably should have said, "According to all the guidelines...", but I changed the language because I had said the word "guidelines" about fifteen times already. Like I said, this forum exhibits not even a shred of verifiable notability. I don't see a reason to merge it into the other article until you show exactly where on the Anime forum this issue was such a big deal. You can claim lots of things, but proof has yet to be given. JHMM13 (T | C) 06:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Votes highlight the user's feelings on an article, but the discussion behind them is what really matters. The rest of JHMM13's comments are valid in my opinion, and I would like to see verifiable evidence of AEs impact on AnimeNation. — TheKMan^talk 06:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable TheRingess 06:45, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Delete if you want; I'm tired of arguing about this and while it had a large impact on AN, it wasn't one of the more pleasant points of their history and they'd probably just as soon forget about it. Samurai_Drifter
  • Comment -- if this board/forum split of from AN on "bad" terms, they (AN) are, I would suggest, hardly likely to offer supporting evdience which will in effect promote a rival. Keep unless bad faith is shown. --SockpuppetSamuelson 11:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website forum. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-03 07:14Z
• Delete as non-notable. Fagstein 07:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Being important to the history of AnimeNation doesn't make it important, because AnimeNation is not importan. :P --Tothebarricades 09:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Article fails WP:WEB. No evidence given per WP:V to substantiate claims of notability. Zunaid 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment I don't see why you can't just keep it, although it may only be relevant to three or four hundred people who encounter us. It's not like we're called "George Bush Forum" or something. -Amy —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.91.210.115 (talk • contribs)
  • Comment: Please see the comments above, especially Wikipedia's guidelines for website notability. At any of those notability pages, you can read about why Wikipedia needs to have restraints based on notability and verifiability, for instance, Wikipedia is not infinite. Incidentally, I invite you to join Wikipedia and learn more about our processes and how the vast amount of information it stores is managed. JHMM13 (T | C) 13:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Daveb 12:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Not Notable... --Nick Catalano (Talk) 17:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable. No merge, no redirect. Ifnord 17:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not notable. --David Johnson [T|C] 18:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, non-notable. We need something more than that the regulars of the forum like it and want the egoboo from its inclusion. RGTraynor 19:13, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable. Per nom. Dan 19:18, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete six google hits is not notable! Sethie 19:36, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, because I just plain loathe web forums. --Agamemnon2 19:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment That's not a valid reason...Samurai_Drifter
• Delete vanity. Do you actually have to have a "valid" reason listed to want a page deleted?Gateman1997 20:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Comment - No, but you should if you're voting on such an issue. I'm sure we all want such votes to be made based on criteria just as thorough and reasonable as that we demand of articles. RGTraynor

• Delete and merge, not many internet forums have their own articles, merge it to whatever it came from (animenation?) Obli (Talk) 21:09, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as Non-Notable (very few google hits and no Alexa traffic) and vanity. Also, Multiple comments by very new users that fail to provide evidence and fail to sign their comments are a little annoying.Wikipedians have been known to react unfavorably to attempts to alter the course of a nomination in this manner, and may in fact recommend to delete based upon it like me.NeoJustin 23:59, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Pepsidrinka 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, bordering on vanity. Would support a merge if anyone wants to take the time. Turnstep 12:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom; no merge. - Liberatore(T) 17:13, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete non notable at this point in time. --kingboyk 20:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable website. --Andylkl ^{[ talk! | c ]} 07:53, 6 January 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.