Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Overclock.net

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 delete discounting new users. Jaranda wat's sup 05:07, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Overclock.net

Overclock.net (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)
  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}}

A seemingly non-notable online forum, of which I have been unable to find multiple, non-trivial, reliable, independent sources with which to verify its notability. Additionally, there is no assertation of notability within the article. The prod that it was tagged with, "non-notable online forum", was contested. Kyra~(talk) 23:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Notability? Is that your reasoning for deletion? Your crazy! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.110.115.66 (talk)
  • Delete I was the one who prod'd it. not notable per WP:WEB and WP:NN. and please whoever you are sign your posts.--Tainter 01:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep

The forum is definitely notable. It is both sponsored and has a very large user base. --Delk 01:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: user account was created 02:03, January 25, 2007 and this is the user's first edit (the second is to his or her user page, which links to overclock.net) GracenotesT § 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Response: Although I have just recently created an account (to avoid the display of my IP here), this is not my first action on Wikipedia. I have been around for a few years now, mostly contributing minor edits (spelling, grammar, etc.) to more obscure articles.) Delk 03:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
OK, no problem. I was just concerned about a conflict of interests. GracenotesT § 16:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Overclock.net has a massive online user-base, as described in the article. The forum has been sponsored by Nvidia, Newegg.com, Tankguys.com, and Maximum PC. Deleting this on basis of non-notability is ridiculous. Feel free to say that I am only here to support Overclock.net, but the truth would be that this is the first article I feel knowledgeable enough about to edit. I am a long time reader and first time editor. --Amped42 02:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: user account was created 01:38, January 25, 2007 and this user has only edited this AFD and Overclock.net GracenotesT § 02:58, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

As a member I'm obviously biased, but this fact also gives me more insight than your average Joe. A few years ago I was motivated to learn about overclocking and quickly found the forum on google. I have been a member in SO many forums, but Overclock.net differs in that its members are leagues above other forums in both intelligence and kindness. This was obvious from the beginning, when no one complained about the frequency of my questions (many of which had been answered numerous times before). Were it simply a nice forum, it might not be notable, but the aforementioned truths have caused the community to explode from around 7,500 members (when I joined in March of 2005) to over 32,000. That's about a 425% increase in under 2 years. It certainly deserves a spot on Wikipedia.TheInformationator 02:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It really is an awesome thing, to be part of a community that shares one's interests, and one that is kind and tolerant. I'm not entirely sure that size or growth of a community is a criterion, though, to keep an article. There are many communities with many, many people, but are not notable. Check out WP:WEB#Criteria - if your community does meet one of the criterion listed there, feel free to mention it, but otherwise, this article merits deletion. You might want to check out Wikia, which is a wiki that can be created for a specific subject. Your community can create a wiki just about the subject of overclocking, and edit it. However, unless a criterion on WP:WEB can be found,
  • Delete: After leafing through this Google search (well, at least the first ten pages), I could not find a non-trivial source that asserted this forum's notability. Unless there is a published non-cybernetic source of which this is the subject (which I doubt), I would have to say delete as non-notable. Sorry, forum-goers. GracenotesT § 02:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

"Overclock.net has been featured on G4 TechTV[2], Maxim Magazine, and the Chicago Tribune....." Isn't that enough for you? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.17.16.87 (talk)

It would depend on the content of the articles, and whether the article was more about overclocking or the website itself. By the way, if this website is pivotal to the overclocking community (but just to the overclocking community), it would definitely deserve mentioning in the overclocking article. GracenotesT § 03:42, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

In TechTV's website and show, they told people to go to Overclock.net for help: http://www.g4techtv.ca/callforhelp/guests/0088A.shtml The owner of Overclock.net also hosted twice on Call for help.

  • Keep -206,000 Unique Visitors Per Month - Source: Google Analytics, January 2006

-1,500,000+ Page Views Per Month - Source: Google Analytics, January 2006
- Hosted television segments on Tech TV's Call For Help
- Appeared within a diverse mix of publications such as Maxim Magazine, The Chicago Tribune and the Australian NetGuide

Hard to believe a website with two hundred and six thousand visitors a month is not notable ... In addition to being mentioned in a diverse mix of publications and the Chicago Tribune.
Jamenta 04:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The G4TV source concerns me somewhat -- it is about overclocking, but the subject of this deletion debate isn't the overclocking article -- it's the overclock.net article. Being mentioned in a publication may not make overclock.net notable, in the Wikipedia sense of the word. In addition, on the talk page, you mentioned that

Overclock.net is one of the LEADING forums for the overclocking community.

It seems to me that overclock.net is notable just in the context of overclocking, so it should definitely be mentioned in that article (called Overclocking). The work that's been done on this article since its deletion is impressive, although perhaps with a bit of biased point of view. Note that how I vote (Delete or Keep) isn't really important: after all, articles for deletion is a discussion of policy, not a ballot. Numbers are important, yes, but in themselves, they're not a criterion for deletion. (The Alexa rank for this website is 50,000.) GracenotesT § 04:56, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (marked as duplicate vote) In January 2007 the Alexa rating for one week was 42,035 with a three month change of 27,685+. The reach has had

a dramatic 73% jump in the last 3 months with a 3 month average of 35.5. One week average of page views in January 2007 was 3 million. Jamenta 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep (marked as duplicate vote) I don't understand, 3 sources have been given repeatedly including a television station. If this

is a valid/open discussion please explain yourself Shaundakulbara for making a blanket statement that is incorrect. Jamenta 05:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep This is my first edit in Wikipedia but I assure you that I am not just some fanboy. I come here to make the argument that overclock.net is very notable, all the 'admins' or whatever your titles are say it is not, i dont know how you can come to that comclusion when it has been referred to through so many media outlets. With millions of posts and hundreds of thousands of visits (specified using Google Analytics as a source somewhere on this page by another person) i think it is notable. But, just out of curiosity, what makes an organization 'notable' in your interpretation of the word?

Sreenath —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sreenathpillai000001 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

  • Keep Google search "overclock" and see what what comes up first. if that is not "notable" to you, then what is?TheSubtleKnife 06:29, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
Response to TheSubtleKnife and Sreenathpillai000001: The code that Google uses is not a measure of notability on Wikipedia. The criteria for notability of a company can be found at WP:CORP. The criteria for notability for an entity whose primary presence is on the internet can be found at WP:WEB. GracenotesT § 06:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per Tainter. Montco 06:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Notability has been established multiple times throughout this discussion, via webpage hits, mentions in mass publications, multiple sources of sponsorship, and a verifiable large member base. By Wiki's own criteria in WP:WEB notability has been established. Quote: "1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself." Unquote. Maxim Magazine and The Chicago Tribune cover that handily. Also, having hosted segments for Tech TV multiple times should establish notability, seeing as Tech TV is considered 'notable' enough to have an existing entry in Wikipedia Witchfire 08:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep I think just the fact that at one point I was looking for the article on Wiki makes it viable to make this article stay on Wiki. Added to this, it's the second link given in google for search word : overclock. The forum has been referred by many sites, and it has a very big userbase. Why would you delete it ? User:F2002yann

I think amount of work done in the last 12 hours should also be considered. Give the article a chance. Delk 13:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Keep I'm trying to link the notable sources including Chicago Tribune article(s) but they are archived. I understand the initial Prod for delete but I believe the credible `non-cyber` references, if I can get them linked, as well as the statements made herein from members of the community of Overclock.net clearly fits the Notable clause.

--Ictinike 16:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

  • I would appreciate if you could find those articles. Otherwise, as I've said before, please feel free to mention it in the overclocking article, since it seems as though this community is important to the field of overclocking; furthermore, a Wikia might be helpful. GracenotesT § 23:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Abstain but lean towards delete. I don't see this as an article which is likely to grow into an article meeting wikipedia's standards. Right now most of the facts in the article don't tell us much about the site (for example, that overclock.net got a press mention is great for them, but a mere mention is different from a secondary source which tells us about overclock.net). The article also has severe problems with tone (along the lines of Template:Advert and WP:NPOV), which could be an argument for Wikipedia:Cleanup, but that's going to be hard unless there are more sources to work from than we've seen so far. Kingdon 22:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep proof? [1]overclock.net is mentioned on the second pageTheSubtleKnife 02:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    Sorry, that PDF is corrupted for me :( GracenotesT § 04:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That file is not corrupted. Looks like someone can use a trip to Overclock.net... Here is the file as a JPG... and if it still doesn't work you should reinstall Windows... http://img411.imageshack.us/img411/4461/proofuv0.jpg

Comment - While the article does mention the website, it is just that, a mention, as the focus is more on modders, not on the forum itself. From what I see, the source would seem to indicate a mention in the Overclocking article is merited, not have its own article; the passing mention the article gives does not seem to satisfy the non-triviality portion of the primary notability criterion. See note three in WP:N for an example. Kyra~(talk) 14:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

heh! Nice JPG. Jamenta 06:10, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Comment. I have no strong feelings about this nomination one way or another, but the sources I've seen provided seem to relate to overclocking, not overclock.net. At best, all they do is provide a link. --UsaSatsui 15:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep (marked as duplicate vote) Your argument Gracenotes, with all due respect, is like claiming Dunkin Donuts belongs in the context of Donut Shops and therefore should only be mentioned in an article on Donut Shops. Doesn't add up. Overclock.net had 3 million page view in January 2007. A year ago it was averaging 206 thousand unique visits a month. IT IS WELL KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE LEADING OVER-CLOCKING FORUMS if not currently THE leading forum on Overclocking, just as Dunkin Donuts is well known to be a leading Donut shop seller among donut shops. Overclock.net probably receives more visitors than all the Dunkin donuts do in the state of Delaware per month. Ask any donut eater if they've heard of Dunkin donuts, most will say yes. Ask any Computer enthusiast & Overclocker if they've heard of Overclock.net, and they will likely say yes as well. Why? Because Overclock.net is a notable site - especially to the 200+ thousand people who visit it per month. This is well known by some very large online sellers such as Newegg, Tankguys & Easypckits who realize just how notable the forum is, and how valuable and specialized. Perhaps the current article needs upgrading to Wikipedia standards - you have a much better argument there, but in regards to notability, as was mentioned earlier - notability requirements have been met as listed by WP:WEB standards. Jamenta 05:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I can tell you for a fact that Overclock.net gets more people than Dunkin' Donuts does in state of California. That has no bearing on the notability of Dunkin' Donuts or anything else. Dunkin' Donuts is notable for being a very large global business that has been around for 60 years that everyone and thier mother writes about. One can't say the same for overclock.net. Please go read WP:AADD, the number of people that visit isn't an indicator of notability. Expecially when there's nothing to back up that number besides what the site says. This is very, very simple: Find an independent source about the site itself, and then you have a much better case against these guys. (In case nobody gets it, DD hasn't made it to CA yet)--UsaSatsui 12:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment Just a note, overclock.net is dedicated more in to performance, rather than simple overclocking. ALthough yes, it's main function is to provide users to refine their overclocking ability, it is a general computer's and electronics reference site. Not only overclocking is discussed, but other ways to enhance performance. Please, keep it. F2002yann
  • Delete per nom. SakotGrimshine 18:35, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


  • Keep Please keep...LessThanJake1241
  • Comment To SakotGrimshine : Why ? It is a notable forum, why would villages with 1000 inhabitants be in Wikipedia, while this article which comprises of 32000 members which is trying to spread computer knowledge not be worth a place in Wikipedia ? User:F2002yann a.k.a [OCN] gravity
    Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. As an encyclopedia, it is then a bunch of other things - 1) not paper 2) one that anybody can edit (until they prove that they can't play well with others or aren't interested in creating an encyclopedia), and others. #1 argues for keeping lots of stuff that your average encyclopedia wouldn't keep. #2 means that we get a lot of stuff that isn't ready for an encyclopedia yet. So we have discussions about where some things fall, and notability guidelines about what we have found in the past to normally be sufficiently noticed to keep an encyclopedia article in good shape.
    Policy requires that all content be 1) verifiable (not necessarily cited, not necessarily online) WP:V, 2) written from a neutral point of view WP:NPOV, and 3) not original research WP:NOR. We've found through experience that what it takes to have an article that complies with policy is a sufficient number of reliable sources that are primarily about the article's topic. (They provide a body of data to work from and an indication that we will probably have enough interested editors to keep the article from being hijacked into spam or an attack page.) WP:WEB and WP:CORP each indicate some other criteria that we take as indicator variables - if they are present, we are willing to bet that the sources exist. (Like smoke coming from the computer is an indicator of a need to buy a replacement part.) Any website or business is a reliable source when self describing, but maintaing a neutral point of view tends not to be a high priority, so we assume that their publications exist, and focus on looking for other sources. We need reliable publications by independent authors that have the article's topic as the primary subject. These need to be non-trivial, which is a discussable interpretation - directory listings are always trivial, full length books are always non-trivial, and in between we are evaluating the amount of content available for having a good encyclopedia article.
    As to the village comparison, experience has shown that when someone goes looking, print sources exist. More generally, see the essay Wikipedia:Inclusion is not an indicator of notability. GRBerry 02:44, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - massive meatpuppetry aside, the non-trivial mentions are enough. If it were only one, I would say get rid of it, but several mentions, plus large # of ghits (I know, I shouldn't use those as sole criteria, but they do mean something) seem to indicate some sort of notability. Part Deux 11:25, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - google hits maybe, however no Google News Archive. Also, can't verify sources. Addhoc 21:04, 31 January 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.