Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppleAddict Forums
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 of the debate was Delete. Consensus is clear, no reason to continue with this silliness.--Sean|Black 06:37, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
AppleAddict Forums[edit]
nn webforums. Only 97 unique Google hits for AppleAddict, let alone its forums. And all of appleaddict.com, forums and all, does not get a ranking from alexa. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- However, the site has an extremely active user body. Where is the boundary drawn at how large a forum must be for it to merit a place on Wikipedia? Must it have over X amount of Google hits?
- —the preceding unsigned comment is by 24.13.227.241 (talk • contribs)
- Delete, as AppleAddict is not a major site. (See Wikipedia:Vanity guidelines) Also, a major portion of the article is "The Great Migration", which is simply fiction, or at the most, historical fiction. SycthosTalk 03:54, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
How about you people leave it alone and let those of us who are members have our fun? "The Great Migration" is actually rooted in real events. Don't judge when you have no idea what you're talking about.
- Delete. I doubt that it meets WP:WEB and consists of original research in parts notably the Great Migration. Capitalistroadster 04:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Josh Parris#: 04:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
We have 1100 members with 469,000+ articles, I believe that meets the notability standard.
The Great Migration is a lyrical retelling of the events described in the History section. If you weren't around for you, of course it seems like nonsense.
- Don't Delete* We have extremely valuable research potential. If you read up on our haikus, they are probably some of the finest minority poems on the web. Not only that, but the sound advice from our inhouse experts on finace, decorating, cunnilingus, and general debauchery (all Banky of course) would impress any would-be sophisticate. Our site is a valuable source for anyone interested in Apple Computing, automobiles, entertainment, and shovels.
- Delete and that overview didn't help your case any. --194.215.208.5 09:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Exhibit A of everything that's wrong with forumcruft on Wikipedia. "Hey, we've got a neat0 forum. This is a bunch of fake stuff about how kewl we are, and here's all our l33t moderators, yeah awesome." Banish it from our shores. FCYTravis 05:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per nom.--nixie 05:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:WEB. -- Megamix? 05:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't Delete* All components of the article are based on fact. There's no basis for deletion except very biased opinion of a few people. Absolutely none. Wikipedia doesn't have to be the bloodbath all you all make it out to be. Psychomonkey 05:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- User's 21st edit (most of which are user space edits)
- Don't Delete -- sounds like Travis is a bit of a forum social outcast and has more than a little bit of an unfair bias. The whole forum's nature is very "inside-joke"-y as it is, and the entry reflects that quite well, while not being completely alien to the casual viewer.
- Keep; Notable —499699787
- User's second edit.
- Keep; Notable —User:Smithmatt
- User's 7th and 8th edits.
- Keep; Unique —user:rgejman
- User's first edit.
- Delete even though being saucy and involving goats usually means automatic inclusion in any encyclopedia, we must make an exception here. Flyboy Will 07:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep; That AppleAddict is smaller than other forums in itself should not be cause for deletion. A forum can be noteworthy for accomplishments other than the size of its membership. In this case, AAF was founded and initially populated by members of MacAddict magazine's online forum. Since it's founding, AAF's membership has grown while MacAddict's active membership has diminished. In addition, MacAddict's once highly useful and active website has diminished both in daily traffic and amount of regularly updated content. Daily news articles, weekly feature stories, and a tech-help section previously authored by Mac Addict's own editorial staff have all but disappeared in the years since the AAF migration. The departure of so many forum members is likely not the cause of MacAddict's significant decline, but it is an undeniable marker in the history of a once important Mac enthusiasts' website. In addition, the "Migration" passage is clearly written in an ironic tone meant to depict actual events in a humorous style and tone consistant with the sensibility of AAF. The forum is a small and growing gem of internet culture and, as such, merits inclusion in the Wikipedia. —user:BW
- Actually by User:70.181.119.175. And is the user's first post. Zunaid
- Delete Completely unencyclopedic and fails to meet WP:WEB Note to new posters:
- Please see this discussion to see how futile it is to argue on the basis of "our forum is so cool and popular" without providing evidence that the forum meets WP:WEB
- This may sound obvious, but please read WP:WEB
- Please read the big orange box at the top of this discussion. Multiple posts by new users (a.k.a. meat puppets) will not count for much unless you can show that the articles meets the various inclusion criteria. The reasons provided above such as "notable" and "unique" are useless without evidence to back them up.
- Please read WP:WEB.
- Lastly, please read WP:WEB.
Zunaid 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you read that page that you linked to five times? Especially the words 'rough guidelines'? (Previous unsigned comment by 499699787 09:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC) and is user's 7th edit.) Zunaid[reply]
- Delete, non-notable web forum. --Stormie 09:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Yes I have read the page, and no, it is not a "rough" guideline. It is in fact a guideline followed by many many editors when deciding on the merits of a website's inclusion on Wikipedia. The fact that the membership falls so far short of the recommended 5,000 is compelling enough for most editors to vote delete. The current non-encyclopedic/whimsical tone and content of the article does not help either. P.s. please sign your comments with four tildes like so: ~~~~, it will expand like so: Zunaid 10:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The forum, based on the comment above, falls well short of the 5000 user guideline. It also has not demonstrated that it has an impact outside of it's own community. Also, once again based off the above comments, the site does not have a Alexa rank of 10,000. Does not meet WP:WEB. Movementarian 11:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I am sick of newbie bashing that often ends up here. The forum has had 472 users on at a time, which, if you can figure that out, suggests a user level well and truly above 5,000. Think about it - if the forum is big enough to get users come on here in droves, then its obviously a big enough forum for us to keep. They have 469,000 articles, which is a pretty good number you know. Just because they don't require all of their members to create accounts in order to post does not mean that they are a small forum. Easily meets the 5,000 required for WP:WEB. Thanks. And the little sign at the top IMO doesn't help matters. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 13:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The guideline says: A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community. This has not been demonstrated in the article. Zunaid 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- GOOD GRIEF! - 472 on at a time means an actual forum size of 10,000+ = just that they don't require you to register. 10,000 IS MUCH MORE THAN 5,000!!!!! Are you guys unable to comprehend basic mathematics???? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, 472 on at one time means a minimum of 472 members. That's mathematics. Claiming it means 10,000 is applying some unspecified theoretical formula. Besides, the site itself claims around 1,100 members, and while I agree that there may be many anonymous users, WP:WEB itself states that the 5,000 apparently unique users guideline is in fact designed for forums that allow anonymous users. Unless there's some claim to notability, such as a mention in the press, or evidence that it is well-known by Mac users (which means if I took a random bunch of Mac users several of them regularly visit it), I say delete.Confusing Manifestation 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter, utter utter nonsense. If you have 100 users on at a time, you usually have 5,000 unique members. This is a ratio that is in common place and is the accepted average. 50 is usually about 2,000. So ergo 472 would mean around lets see 25,000 unique members. Or are you expecting me to believe that 472 on at a time means 1,100 unique members? For that to be true, the AVERAGE USER would need to be on for almost 12 hours per day. Do you honestly believe that? I think not. This is the most absurd interpretation that you could possibly imagine, and anyone who thinks that 472 on at a time equals 472 unique members has to have their head read. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- In what policy or guideline is this "common place" and "accepted average" enshrined? More to the point, who came up with it in the first place? I've spent years on forums and never heard of such a thing. FCYTravis 02:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- As I understand it, that 472 is the most users ever online at one time. For perspective, the Something Awful Forums have 3803 users online right now. Furthermore, your "formula" is utterly flawed: by your math, Something Awful has 190,150 users (it has 69,948).--keepsleeping sleeper cell 04:45, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you actually defending this lot or are you playind Advocatus Diaboli for the kicks, Zordrac. --194.215.208.5 09:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Utter, utter utter nonsense. If you have 100 users on at a time, you usually have 5,000 unique members. This is a ratio that is in common place and is the accepted average. 50 is usually about 2,000. So ergo 472 would mean around lets see 25,000 unique members. Or are you expecting me to believe that 472 on at a time means 1,100 unique members? For that to be true, the AVERAGE USER would need to be on for almost 12 hours per day. Do you honestly believe that? I think not. This is the most absurd interpretation that you could possibly imagine, and anyone who thinks that 472 on at a time equals 472 unique members has to have their head read. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 01:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, 472 on at one time means a minimum of 472 members. That's mathematics. Claiming it means 10,000 is applying some unspecified theoretical formula. Besides, the site itself claims around 1,100 members, and while I agree that there may be many anonymous users, WP:WEB itself states that the 5,000 apparently unique users guideline is in fact designed for forums that allow anonymous users. Unless there's some claim to notability, such as a mention in the press, or evidence that it is well-known by Mac users (which means if I took a random bunch of Mac users several of them regularly visit it), I say delete.Confusing Manifestation 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- GOOD GRIEF! - 472 on at a time means an actual forum size of 10,000+ = just that they don't require you to register. 10,000 IS MUCH MORE THAN 5,000!!!!! Are you guys unable to comprehend basic mathematics???? Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 17:01, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: The guideline says: A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community. This has not been demonstrated in the article. Zunaid 14:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The author (and member of the forum I assume) claims 1100 members. Movementarian 15:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]
- Speedy delete vanity trash Lapinmies 15:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete No verifiable impact. Zordrac, I don't really see the newbie-bashing you're referring to - I think everyone in this particular discussion has remained pretty civil. (ESkog)(Talk) 15:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Even if newbie-bashing is going on, which I don't see any of, I don't believe a 'newbie' which registers to defend his forum should get the same benefit of the doubt as a newbie which registers to contribute to Wikipedia. And the little sign is a very, very good idea, shame no-one pays attention. --Last Malthusian 15:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Forum vanity. Sjakkalle (Check!) 16:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete.Gateman1997 18:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nomination. —Preost talk contribs 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This isn't a vote......why are you all voting? Jcuk 22:37, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Point of Order I find no such consensus, and do indeed object. The guidelines that have been referenced many, many times here before have more of an apparent focus on web comics than they do forums. The guidelines for the forums appear to be directed at the average forum -- a forum where the vast majority of registered users do not post, and those that do, do so sparingly. The guidelines inappropriately ignore the potential for a small forum filled with very active members, or a forum that prunes its inactive users. To provide an example of where the AppleAddict entry may find itself useful, consider this: on the MacAddict Forums, it is quite often that references are made to the AppleAddict forums, and allowing a wiki entry for the AAF would be beneficial to newer members of the aforementioned MacAddict Forums who do not understand the history of such a reference. I feel the entry for the AAF represents an important historical reference, and given the nature of the history of the forum, that the entry itself is appropriate and not simply useless vanity. Dan Parnell
- We don't have an article on the MacAddict Forums, and if one was started I would speedily merge it back where it belongs - the article on MacAddict magazine. The reality is, the great vast majority of what happens on forums is unencyclopedic. The minute "history" details of who pissed off what to whom and did wrong to someone to cause some great DRAMA... is utterly uninteresting and uninformative to anyone outside the forum. I've been involved in some pretty big forum splits myself. Lots of DRAMA. Pissed off people. Split-offs. But guess what? Who cares? Nobody! Forum drama is unencyclopedic. It's especially unencyclopedic when it's a bunch of utterly uninformative bogus fakery. Please see WP:DRV for an example of a fansite that is doing it right - Gtplanet. They may very well get a consensus to undelete and take another shot, because they've shown in detail why their site is encyclopedic - more than a forum, has reviews, file downloads, etc., notable in its field, etc. Nobody here linked with AppleAddict Forums has done any of that. Instead, y'all threw up a bunch of made-up crap on a page and expect us to keep it... why? FCYTravis 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The content you are referring to is neither 'bogus fakery' nor 'made-up crap'—it is factual. The opinion on a matter of notability from someone who is responsible for devising the notability guidelines has an inherent bias, and your comments are proof of that. —499699787 01:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- NOTE: This comment is addressed to FCYTravis: A "bunch of made-up crap"? All of it is based on fact and is directly related to the style of the AppleAddict Forums themselves. Which, if you'd been paying attention, you would know. Then again, since you also don't know that the relation between the MacAddict Forums and the MacAddict magazine is so extremely loose that merging articles about the two distinct entities would be inappropriate, I suppose it's unfair to assume that you pay attention to what is going on. It's clear you have an opinion, and it's clear that you think more highly of it (and yourself) than anyone with two brain cells to rub together does. I won't be heartbroken if the entry disappears, but if it does, I want it to do so for reasons other than the lame illogic and FUD you've been spreading to further your personal agenda and embiggen your ego. It's clear you have an ulterior motive behind your deletion recommendation, and the fact that you still cannot understand why the entry is there or what it is saying irrevocably establishes your inappropriate bias. It'd also be nice if you stopped editing out people who posted opinions on this page you didn't agree with. Lumbergh 01:23, 21 December 2005 (UTC) || Edited: Lumbergh 01:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC) to correct an inaccuracy.[reply]
- If you consider this to be factual and encyclopedic, then you clearly have no idea what "encyclopedic" means. Please see WP:NOT for encyclopedia policy. This is something y'all made up because you think it sounds funny. Back in the second age, the Asslickers wielded more power, and all the races of the Forum prospered. All was well, for a time. Unbeknownst to the Asslickers, though, a great evil brewed all the while. Justine was building a great army of minions, bent on the destruction of all the free races of the forum. The time of the Asslickers seemed to be nearing its end. That's an interesting example of Internet storytelling, but it's not factual, which means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I encourage you to start a WikiCities site to have your own Wiki. I have not deleted anyone's comments from this page, nor am I doing this to "embiggen my ego" - an accusation that is, I will note, a violation of the no personal attacks policy. I believe this article should be deleted for one reason only: It's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please! Your bolded comment is a literary retelling of actual events! How inane of you to declare it non-factual without actually having been there to watch the events unfold. What, exactly, gives you the authority to arbitrarily decide what is factual and what is not based on absolutely no evidence or background information whatsoever? And considering your very own user page megalomaniacally brags about you having been "Proudly Playing With My Deletion Button Since July 1, 2005...", I don't think my assertion that you are on an ego trip here is at all a personal attack: it is simply a statement of fact. It just so happens that that fact is the very foundation of your opinion and the recommendations you've formed based on that opinion, and therefore is an important and relevant piece of information to consider when evaluating your statements regarding the possible deletion of this article.
- For someone who gets all high and mighty about the allegedly funny "literary retelling," you don't seem to have a very cromulent sense of humor. "Literary retellings" are not allowed on Wikipedia. The very fact that it is allegedly "literary" means that liberties have been taken with the facts in writing it, meaning I'm perfectly justified in flat-out calling it bogus. FCYTravis 01:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding. Now you're arguing semantics. I guess it saves you from the task of actually establishing and defending a position. —499699787 02:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a legitimate sense of humor? Now who's throwing out personal attacks? Oh, and if you could, please direct me to the wiki policy which states that artistic licenses are not granted when they are used to illustrate an analogous point. Speaking of points, this little debate between you and I is really starting to lack one. I think I'm going to go watch television and have a martini. Have the last word if you must, but don't expect too many people to respect it. Lumbergh 02:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Literary writing is inherently original research, which is prohibited by the no original research policy. Judging by the consensus on this page, I think the question of whose position is respected is fairly clear, n'est-ce pas? FCYTravis 02:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- For someone who gets all high and mighty about the allegedly funny "literary retelling," you don't seem to have a very cromulent sense of humor. "Literary retellings" are not allowed on Wikipedia. The very fact that it is allegedly "literary" means that liberties have been taken with the facts in writing it, meaning I'm perfectly justified in flat-out calling it bogus. FCYTravis 01:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, please! Your bolded comment is a literary retelling of actual events! How inane of you to declare it non-factual without actually having been there to watch the events unfold. What, exactly, gives you the authority to arbitrarily decide what is factual and what is not based on absolutely no evidence or background information whatsoever? And considering your very own user page megalomaniacally brags about you having been "Proudly Playing With My Deletion Button Since July 1, 2005...", I don't think my assertion that you are on an ego trip here is at all a personal attack: it is simply a statement of fact. It just so happens that that fact is the very foundation of your opinion and the recommendations you've formed based on that opinion, and therefore is an important and relevant piece of information to consider when evaluating your statements regarding the possible deletion of this article.
- If you consider this to be factual and encyclopedic, then you clearly have no idea what "encyclopedic" means. Please see WP:NOT for encyclopedia policy. This is something y'all made up because you think it sounds funny. Back in the second age, the Asslickers wielded more power, and all the races of the Forum prospered. All was well, for a time. Unbeknownst to the Asslickers, though, a great evil brewed all the while. Justine was building a great army of minions, bent on the destruction of all the free races of the forum. The time of the Asslickers seemed to be nearing its end. That's an interesting example of Internet storytelling, but it's not factual, which means it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I encourage you to start a WikiCities site to have your own Wiki. I have not deleted anyone's comments from this page, nor am I doing this to "embiggen my ego" - an accusation that is, I will note, a violation of the no personal attacks policy. I believe this article should be deleted for one reason only: It's not encyclopedic. FCYTravis 01:35, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- We don't have an article on the MacAddict Forums, and if one was started I would speedily merge it back where it belongs - the article on MacAddict magazine. The reality is, the great vast majority of what happens on forums is unencyclopedic. The minute "history" details of who pissed off what to whom and did wrong to someone to cause some great DRAMA... is utterly uninteresting and uninformative to anyone outside the forum. I've been involved in some pretty big forum splits myself. Lots of DRAMA. Pissed off people. Split-offs. But guess what? Who cares? Nobody! Forum drama is unencyclopedic. It's especially unencyclopedic when it's a bunch of utterly uninformative bogus fakery. Please see WP:DRV for an example of a fansite that is doing it right - Gtplanet. They may very well get a consensus to undelete and take another shot, because they've shown in detail why their site is encyclopedic - more than a forum, has reviews, file downloads, etc., notable in its field, etc. Nobody here linked with AppleAddict Forums has done any of that. Instead, y'all threw up a bunch of made-up crap on a page and expect us to keep it... why? FCYTravis 00:54, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Article at appleaddict was already deleted on 12/14 by User:Merovingian [1]. I highly doubt anything has changed here in the last six days. | Klaw ¡digame! 02:43, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Not notable, or at at least clean it up to remove the stupid amount of inside jokes. --Apostrophe 04:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've already speedied this once, and silly little forums have no place here. --King of All the Franks 04:58, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I think we have more then proved why this page should be left on the wikipedia. All those that say "don't delete" seem to have to say is that it's not a big enough forum. I feel, however, that size of something as arbitrary as number of users is rather meaningless. It would not surprise me if there was a webforum on wiki that had many more users but less *active* users. The history of AppleAddict is very much important in the world of the web, espically related to macaddict. For evidence of this, I would suggest one to scroll up and read the comments left. While it is true that perhaps the headings and grammer used may need some modifications, it is policy of Wkipedia to not jump the gun and delete things rightaway; it's always a work in progress. Perhaps if those of you that say delete without really looking into or trying to understand how the forum is pertinent, you would see so more clearly. Also, I would like to say the little box at the top of the page made me laugh my ass off. I really doubt anybody thought this was a vote. I believe most people wrote that as a type of heading to their post; to declare their position clearly. Arguing that you have to have a lot of edits is moot as well: it makes absolutely no sense. Just because someone has edited a few hundred times more then someone else doesn't mean anything. Perhaps the user contributed when you didn't have to register to edit? Also, perhaps the user just found the site. Then what. Then your saying that those that have spent more time going and doing research to edit posts or those that make up their info or those that don't know what their talking about have more authoritah. And that is, quite frankly absolutely dumb. Also, the point is it was deleted once out of haste. We know that it was deleted before. We know, and it still doesn't matter. Psychomonkey 05:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there anyone here who disputes that 472 users on at a time would mean that the number of actual unique users would be more than 5,000? And is there anyone that doubts that they have in fact a lot more than 1,100 users, since they do not require you to be a member in order to post and 90% of their posts are by non members? Anyone who doubts that? Meets WP:WEB. Zordrac (talk) Wishy Washy Darwikinian Eventualist 05:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually AAF does require that you be a member to post, and 100% of posts are by members. ~ Scott
- I don't see the 472->5000 math. Even so, however, that criterion in WP:WEB has a second half you omitted: "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." (emphasis mine) So, to satisfy that criterion, you'd also have to demonstrate the impact beyond your own community. Given the insular nature of the article and the lack of meaningful non-forum content on the site, I don't believe the criterion has been satisfied. | Klaw ¡digame! 05:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community." - This is as ambiguous as the rest. What does verifiable impact mean in this case? An impact that can be verified? Ok, here you go: If the user community specified in WP:WEB is the user base at the AAF, and the AAF and MAF today exist as two separate entities (the user bases are not co-mingled) then the impact that the creation of the AAF has had on on the MAF is verifiable. i.e., it can be proven. Rgejman 07:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- One other point from WP:WEB "(A good rule of thumb is three times the number of unique members; so a forum with 5,500 members would need 16,500 posts.)" Using this rule of thumb, and defining the number of posts on the AAF at just over 270,000, we can solve backwards for the number of users, giving us roughly, 90,000. 1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000. That seems notable in it's own right. Rgejman 07:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:WEB a bit more clearly. The point says first 5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. I still have no idea where this "472 registered members means thousands upon thousands of unregistered ones" comes from, and the way I read the guideline is that since all anonymous users are necessarily impossible to call "apparently unique", you have to look at the registered user base. I admit that is merely my interpretation and that it is partially what I have based my judgement on. Secondly, the rest of the guideline states that measuring userbase on the number of postings is only for [f]orums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages, so I do not believe it should be applied here (and in fact stating that "1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000 is missing the fact that anonymous users can post). Thirdly and hopefully finally, and again a matter of my own interpretation of the guideline, a verifiable impact outside its own community needs to be a notable impact, and I don't consider the fact that it's taken a lot of users from another forum whose only notability is a weak association to a magazine to be notable in itself. A simple question: Has AppleAddict, or its forums, been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine, significant online news outlet, or by a prominent person? If so, then provide evidence, and then I will reconsider my vote. Confusing Manifestation 11:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Frankly, you said it. You are not operating within the strict guidelines you purport by consistently exclaiming WP:WEB. The WP:WEB ""does not"" say that a website needs to have had a notable impact - it says it must have had a ""verifiable"" impact. There is a huge difference there. Now, if you want to argue that what is ""meant"" is notable, then by all means edit the WP:WEB - but until then, don't throw the WP:WEB at this discussion as if it were the holy grail of wikipedian thought. Rgejman 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You need to read WP:WEB a bit more clearly. The point says first 5,000 or more apparently unique members applies to forums which anonymous users can read. I still have no idea where this "472 registered members means thousands upon thousands of unregistered ones" comes from, and the way I read the guideline is that since all anonymous users are necessarily impossible to call "apparently unique", you have to look at the registered user base. I admit that is merely my interpretation and that it is partially what I have based my judgement on. Secondly, the rest of the guideline states that measuring userbase on the number of postings is only for [f]orums which require a user to sign up to read or see messages, so I do not believe it should be applied here (and in fact stating that "1,100 users are posting enough for 90,000 is missing the fact that anonymous users can post). Thirdly and hopefully finally, and again a matter of my own interpretation of the guideline, a verifiable impact outside its own community needs to be a notable impact, and I don't consider the fact that it's taken a lot of users from another forum whose only notability is a weak association to a magazine to be notable in itself. A simple question: Has AppleAddict, or its forums, been mentioned in a newspaper or magazine, significant online news outlet, or by a prominent person? If so, then provide evidence, and then I will reconsider my vote. Confusing Manifestation 11:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah well, even as such, what it comes down to is the page that discusses websites and forums says, in a nutshell "yeah, this isn't real policy, just proposed policy", which means it should be taken with a bucket of salt. That ends that. Psychomonkey 05:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps if the MacAddict article was edited to add in some of its forum history. Their forums comprise 21,000+ members, with 1,000,000+ posts. Given that AAF managed almost half that many with 95% fewer members seems notable to me. S0sumi
- The minor details of forum histories are not encyclopaedic. In 5 years, nobody will care who got banned on which forum when. Those great DRAMAS never have any verifiable impact outside their userbase or a few LiveJournals. The fact that MacAddict has a forum is interesting and verifiable. The fact that JoeBlow92 got banned from the "Yeehaw w00t" board and proceeded to flame the moderators until the community decided to have his account crushed by an elephant... is neither particularly interesting nor is it independently verifiable. FCYTravis 11:52, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For such a small forum, it's impressive that they put up such a fuss over article deletion. - CorbinSimpson 09:44, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Mostly because all the linked guidelines seem horribly arbitrary in what they deem "notable." As well as the people thinking Wikipedia is the intellectual equivalent to the Oxford English Dictionary or Encylopedia Brittanica. S0sumi 10:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Poring over every new article like you're trying to cram the sum of human knowledge into ten leather-bound volumes is ludicrous considering what makes Wikipedia unique is that the marginal cost of each new article is so small; it's just extra bytes on a hard drive in Florida. The hostility towards new users and new content—clearly illustrated above—is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's open philosophy. How many people will continue to contribute after having to battle this Afd process on each article they create? Especially when formerly anonymous users who register so that they can create articles have their opinions discounted simply because they have only a handful of edits. —499699787 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- People commonly cite our 'open philosophy' when they try to get what amounts to free webhosting to advertise their life/website/band. Wikipedia is about openness, but first and foremost it is an encyclopaedia. The most important thing, therefore, is that every article is verifiable. Most of this article is not verifiable, parts of it are complete bollocks, and even if the whole thing is pared down to that which is verifiable (very little), because this article is non-notable it's not worth Wikipedians who aren't part of the forums trying to keep unverified first-hand stories and suchlike out of the article. --Last Malthusian 11:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. Poring over every new article like you're trying to cram the sum of human knowledge into ten leather-bound volumes is ludicrous considering what makes Wikipedia unique is that the marginal cost of each new article is so small; it's just extra bytes on a hard drive in Florida. The hostility towards new users and new content—clearly illustrated above—is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's open philosophy. How many people will continue to contribute after having to battle this Afd process on each article they create? Especially when formerly anonymous users who register so that they can create articles have their opinions discounted simply because they have only a handful of edits. —499699787 11:02, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Advertising? Now your just making things up, malthusian.Psychomonkey 17:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:WEB, meatpuppets. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- The WP:WEB is a set of generic guidelines, not a test to be passed or failed. Just because the number of users is smaller (by the way: we don't allow anonymous/unregistered posting) doesn't mean that the forum does not deserve an historical entry. This seemingly small number of users have posted almost half a million articles. How can that not be noteworthy? Don't delete. Lumbergh 05:54, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.