Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProgArchives

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. Resistance is futile!. - Mailer Diablo 16:38, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ProgArchives

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}}

Unexceptional web forum, delete. --Peta 06:57, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - I do not see any problem with this. This is not just a forum, it's an authorative website and one of the best sources for progressive rock (and metal) on the web. We are always pleased to make the necessary changes and expand on this entry. Also, we have removed a lot of the original content since the original deletion status was applied, because we deemed it trivial and unnecessary. >>> I've made further changes and the entry now sits with me more comfortably. I've also noticed other websites/forums have wiki entries here >>> I'm not sure what kind of sources Wine Guy expects us to use... surely the website itself is proof enough? All the information contained in the article can be found on the website itself. Therefore I do not see any issues here. If Wine Guy (or anyone else for that matter) can confirm to me what kind of sources we are supposed to be using, I will be happy to add them >>> Tellier-Craig, as far as I can tell, has also not made any other contributions to wikipedia, besides his/her comment, so why has their comment not been commented on, like the others? Just curious. --Geck0 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Apart from I dont see any problem, this is one of the most important website for progressive rock. As google already cited is as the first result if "progressive rock" is searched. Imoeng 07:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Needs to have some of the ad-centric content cleaned up, but this is a very useful site for information about progressive bands, albums, and sub-genre definitions. The reviews and band bios are pretty extensive and that part of the site is a pro-bono service of the members, not unlike Wikipedia itself.Sheriff Bob Moore 21:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Sheriff Bob Moore (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete Seems like an advert for a website. If people want information on ProgArchives, they can go directly to its website. JeffMurph 08:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm a member of that forum and that site. As wonderful as the site is, this entry here lacks.I find the Wikipedia entry of the Archives kinda sloppy and uninteresting. A generalization that pretty much serves to nothing.Very short, simple background. Section "Community" goes very casual, explaining general things. About the collaborators, decent stuff, still rudimentary. Features that express details (something not really important, in my opinion, of a view over the concept of Prog Archives. Miscellaneous things that serve the same thing. In my opinion, not the best way to highlight, within the archives of this site, the Progressive Rock website, forum, concept etc. >>> I see modifications were made, just want to add to my opinion, that there is already an extensive definition of "Progressive Rock", the one given here is half-copied (first paragraph), half easy interpretation. Some sub-genres go repeated for the second time. Also, "Community" section and "The Forum" section are practically the same thing. Tellier-Craig 10:45, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete generic web forum. Just zis Guy you know? 09:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Typical forum vanity, as usual no reliable sources or evidence of media attention. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - per above. Listerin 14:46, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Tellier-Craig. -Royalguard11^Talk 17:37, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP: This site is the best reference that we have in the net to keep alive one of the most artistic expressions of Rock music. 200.4.234.111 05:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: 200.4.234.111 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Keep Whoever said it's a generic forum got to be kidding. The forum is just a small part of the site, I mean, if there are entries on sites like Ebaumsworld or Something Awful who also have extencive forums along with regular content, PA must stay. Plus it's an extencive informatione resource, not just an entertainment site. -The Miracle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. This article makes no reference to independent (third-party) reliable sources, and until it does, it fails WP:V and must go. --Wine Guy Talk 00:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
• keep Come on, the fact that we don't appear in the news shouldn't ve a reason to delete. We're not advertising anything, we're just prog rock enthusiasts promoting music through this wonderful resource, a completely non-commercian information database. The owners of the site have nothing to do with this article, it is NOT an advert and not meant to be. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: 71.130.168.34 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
• Delete. Non-notable forum. *drew 23:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - I would probably be willing to concede notability ... but there isn't a single citation in the article. Thus, it is presumed to be origina research. BigDT 00:33, 30 July 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.