Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The forum site

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. - Mailer Diablo 00:35, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The forum site

Non-notable Forum. It has 1270 users [1] under the 5000 recommended by WP:WEB and its alexa rating is 391,686. Also, see this discussion on the forum about their article. Broken S 14:52, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

they assert that they have more than 5000 users (from forum). I can't verify that though (although I have no reason to doubt it). BTW to the forum members reading this. You can comment by clicking on the edit link at the top and typing a message in under mine. Please end your comment with ~~~~, to sign your message. Broken S 18:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - I am convinced by their stats list on their main page.

Forums: 3170 • Members: 5630

   22 online
   9 new today
   526 recent

• Topics: 24798 • Posts: 391109

   865 today
   Goal: 2325

• Journals: 5586

    28428 replies

• Pics: 4266

   16063 replies
   23160 ratings

• Points: 756601 • PMs: 75282 • Friends: 9955 • Reviews: 305 • Polls: 1017 Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 18:34, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-encyclopedic. Barely over the user count minimum, and a poor Alexa rating, spells delete this subsubsubsubstub. The essential problem with pages like is this, there is absolutely nothing to expand because there's nothing encyclopedic to say about the site. There is no suggestion that this site has influenced a wider audience or that it is anything more than a chat page. Beyond the (POV, I will note) "friendly place to chat" - what are you going to say about this site? List all the moderators? All the forums? Who cares! WP:NOT a Web directory. FCYTravis 19:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Weak delete It may fall into the criteria, but it seems to lack worth, and I don't see how this is or can become encyclopedic Ian13 21:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per our usual policy with things that cannot meet WP:V. If we can cite reliable independant sources that document its friendly community, reputation, and addictiveness then I might change my recomendation. - brenneman^(t)(c) 14:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete... not really much point in having articles about web forums unless there's something notable to say about them. *Dan T.* 16:11, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
• This highlights one of the things that is wrong with the WP:WEB criteria: An inclusion criterion of "has M or more members" yields a discussion forum directory, with many entries that can never be more than "X is a discussion forum. Domain name: D. Number of members claimed: N.", not an encyclopaedia. (This is just the same process that yields a business directory, not an encyclopaedia, when inclusion criteria for companies include things like "has N or more employees".)

  Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that the forum actually has the number of members stated, any more than Wikipedia actually has the number of editors that Special:Statistics states. (Consider people who create one-off vandalism accounts, for example.)

  The best criterion to employ is whether anyone else, wholly independent of the subject, has found it notable enough that they have gone to the effort of publishing non-trivial works of their own that are about it. For Usenet, for example, one will find independently written and published FAQs, guides, papers in conference proceedings, and a large number of books. Searching, I find nothing like that for this subject. Indeed, the web site appears not to even have an "about" page of its own. Anything in this article beyond a mere directory entry, of the form described, would be original research. Wikipedia is not a directory. Delete. Uncle G 19:18, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per various reasons given above. Fails WP:V. -- Dalbury^(Talk) 00:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
• What's wrong with WP:WEB? Well, ok, lots of things. But the main thing is lack of wider participation in forming this proposed policy. (Hint hint nudge nudge, everyone.) - brenneman^(t)(c) 01:25, 7 December 2005 (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.