Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HFboards

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HFboards

HFboards (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Non notable board, no references cited, seems to be fairly blatant advertising --Miskwito 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete as nom --Miskwito 19:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As an admin of the board, I have to agree with most of what you're saying. It's not intended as advertising, but the board...while the biggest hockey board on the web...is a messageboard nonetheless and rather non-notable as such. As an aside, members that have been banned from teh board have been using vandalizing the wiki page as a means of a sandbox, and we'd rather just not deal with the headache. Predshockey17 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom --Predshockey17 21:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Predshockey17. Skudrafan1 15:17, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per norm. Kaiser matias 16:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. HF is an excellent board -- I'm a member myself -- but it's just another web forum. RGTraynor 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
• Don't delete I added links for the VFR and poutine threads as well as a USA Today article discussing the VFR campaign. If you take this down, you had better take down Son's of Sam Horn, Something Awful, eBaum's world and every other message board wikipedia entry out there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Danno2530 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
  • Please take a look at WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. You can't use that line of reasoning to argue that an article should or should not be deleted. --Miskwito 02:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Fine, but what makes these other boards notable and able to stay up with no protest while this one has to be taken down immediately? I'm asking an honest question here, not trying to "compare" them.

• Comment: Well, if you want to be direct about it, what keeps those other articles up is that either no AfDs have been filed on them or if any have, there was no consensus to Delete. If you think there are articles on non-notable bulletin boards around, feel free to file AfDs on them. That being said, the VFR campaign had nothing to do with the HF boards. RGTraynor 14:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Not to nitpick, as I am voting for deletion despite my membership at HF...but the VFR campaign most certainly DID have something to do with HF...not only did it originate there, most of those participating and creating a buzz about it were HF members through HF threads(over 10,000 posts worth). It started at HF...and THEN spread elsewhere.Predshockey17 23:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: And to follow up on the last comment, if you actually noticed, I posted links to the thread that it began. If you followed the timeline, you will clearly see that is where it began in spite of it being posted to a few other boards around the same time. Also, there is a story from USA Today. It said that in order for the article to be kept, links had to be provided and I did that and followed the guidelines. If you still think that isn't enough, then just get rid of it I guess. I don't really feel as strongly about it as the folks who want it deleted.

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.