Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ESPN forums

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 merge to ESPN. BD2412 T 18:12, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ESPN forums, Espn forums

Articles about online forums are usually not preferred on Wikipedia; I learned that the hard way from what happened with the Atari Forums article. Keep in mind that there are millions of forum sites out there. --NicAgent 01:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC) nomination finished by bikeable (talk) 02:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I added Espn forums (created separately by the same user) to this AfD. bikeable (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Weak merge to ESPN -- I can't get numbers from Alexa right now, but I would guess that this is a reasonably popular destination. bikeable (talk) 02:30, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per above. ESPN is one of the most popular sites on the internet, and has been for years. But forums usually don't need their own articles if there's a good merge target. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I linked ESPN's forum site at wikipedia's ESPN page. --User:Chaser (T, C, e) 02:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Merge and Keep for now - ESPN forums historically were extremely popular in college sports circles. They have been largely supplanted by Scout.com, Rivals.com, and the few independant school-specific message boards, but "back in the day", ESPN forums were the place to go for college sports fans. HOWEVER, the articles most certainly need to be merged into one and the other should be turned into a redirect - there is no need for two articles. I could even live with merging both into ESPN. BigDT 02:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Forums really aren't anything noteable. I noted that ESPN.com is a redirect to ESPN. I don't know if this would be appropriate to ESPN, but if the .com page existed, I'd suggest merging there. But otherwise, this should be deleted. --Ataricodfish 03:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and Merge ILovePlankton ^{(T—C—U—L)} 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. I'm astonished; we vote to keep bulletin boards all the time, often with quite small totals, as long as enough partisan Keep votes can be wrassled up. We're talking an Alexa rank of twenty-two and over twenty billion hits a day for the site in general. That doesn't merely meet WP:WEB, it nukes it. What the heck? RGTraynor 05:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Not trying to change your vote, RGT, but 22 is the ranking for go.com, which includes espn.com -- not for the forums. I can't get any ranking info for the forums separately. bikeable (talk) 05:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment Agree with Bikeable. Under the collective Alexa logic, the thousands of forums on Yahoo! (i.e., Yahoo! Finance, etc.) as well as forums on other popular sites such as IGN.com, IMDB.com, etc., would also deserve their own articles. It's not the forum that's notable or getting the Alexa rankings, but the sites themselves. I'm all for having ESPN.com, but not some forums on the site. --Ataricodfish 14:44, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to ESPN, parent isn't all that big, indiependent notability is vague. --Eivind^t@c 16:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or Merge to ESPN. We already have an article on ESPN don't we? Why do we need one about the forums on their web site? KleenupKrew 20:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You'll be happy to know that I nominated Espn forums for Speedy Deletion. It has no value on Wikipedia, even if by chance ESPN forums should stay. They are basically duplicate articles. --NicAgent 19:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Merge to ESPN, I would say the forums are not independently notable. Would they have any significant existence separate from the main site? And if they did would they distinguish themselves from the limitless other web forums? Just zis Guy you know? 20:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I just merged the two articles together. --NicAgent 20:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Just a comment -- the author of the ESPN forums article had vandalized this AfD vote, which surprisingly sat unnoticed for over 24 hours. Just wanted to note that the vandalism has been reverted, and that I noticed on his talk page that he has been blocked indefinitely. --Ataricodfish 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. He was the same guy who created an article about an INDIVIDUAL USER on the ESPN FORUMS! Well however I never saw that he actually "vandalized" any pages until now, but hey, Wikipedia has gotten so strict lately that even just one vandal edit, as he did to this AfD is enough for being put away for life. --NicAgent 15:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

An individual user? Wow. -- I actually was surprised to see he was already banned, since he had so few edits, although the vandalism to this page was pretty substancial (messing with all the delete votes, changing people's comments, being vulgar, etc.). What was odd was, it appeared the vandalism to this page, since it wasn't reverted, wasn't the cause of his ban. Oh well, I'm going off topic now. I still vote delete on this article. --Ataricodfish 19:00, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect and mention in ESPN#Buisness Ventures -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. ESPN.com probably deserves its own article, but the ESPN forums are nowhere near as notable as the Something Awful Forums, b/c the ESPN forums have almost never created any unique content known to people outside of the forum.--M@rēino 16:09, 17 May 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.