Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egm NGR

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.

Egm NGR[edit]

The result of the debate was delete. The rules on verification are pretty important, and this isn't a vote. - brenneman ^{L} 12:31, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it: How on Earth do you expect this Wiki article to grow if you keep attempting to destroy it every time it's started? These boards have started several internet known trends like the Brian Peppers doctorings. Lucavious

Non-notable web site; no Alexa rank, 35 google hits. De-proded without comment; article in furious nonsense edit war. Weregerbil 17:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 35 Google Hits? Where did that come from? Also, I have requested semi-protection to halt the edit war. -- Viewdrix 02:14, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a version of the article that is about the site. Weregerbil 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete the original is clearly non-notable. In its current state its clearly nonsense (and tagged as such) let it be speedied and probably protected given the amount of vandalism. Gwernol 17:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable website, fails WP:WEB --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 20:53, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as isI don't see how it is not notable. It has over 736,000 posts, and is one of the most active boards on the net. It also has it's own website. If this is not notable I don't know what is. Necro 22:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. ... discospinster 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

this article has already beeen delited at least once in aprior incident, speedy delete please
Dear people wishing to delete this article. I decided to look at the Category Internet Forums to see exactly what was considered "notable" by your standards. And after reviewing that list of forums I have to say NGR is much more notable than half of those forums on that list, yet none of them are up for deletion. Necro 23:06, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permanent Delete I come to Wikipedia to read about interesting things, not a list of people that post on an internet forum. --Bulgogi 23:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To bulgogi*. Wikipedia is full of tons of interesting things. Did you know that in the year 2078 Soham murders killer Ian Huntley eligible for parole in this year. 1 Or how about the fact that Fahrenheit is a Thai rock band featuring a female lead vocalist 2 Interesting, right? Wikipedia is full of plenty uninteresting things. And iff you dont find it interesting all you have to do is NOT GO TO IT it's not that hard. Apparently this article is interesting to some people, or else it wouldnt be up.

Keep it: As Lucavious said here and Darknecro said in the article's discussion page, in a few days, the vandalism will be over and serious editers can be given a chance to add to it. I'm sure luca and Necro will be more than happy to contribute to the article. And if this is deleted, I suggest that the two keep any reincarnation of the page in the future a secret so that the douches from the board don't vandalize it to Hell.

In addition, Club-Siemens is an Internet forum with literally nothing important about it, but its marked as an article needing importance. Why not delete that than this, the home of the Brian Peppers Internetwide meme? OverlordChris 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as is: Whether the reason for deletion is vandalism or non-notability, I believe this is worth keeping. As stated, many other pages for forums aren't as notable as EGM NGR, including low amounts of Google hits and not Alexa rankings, so if this were to be deleted, they should all be wiped clean as well. As for vandalism, once the Wikipedia article is established, the idea to deface it will lose appeal to members of the board, I know this for fact. Please also know that some users that dislike EGM NGR but post there to annoy are attempting to have this article removed for irritation factor to the board members who wish to develop a serious article, specifically Bulgogi [1], as well as another user who we don't know the Wiki username who is upset he was left off the suer list. -- Viewdrix 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the subject of the page being vandalized. The main person who is doing it has an IP of 198.69.109.3 I would grealy appreciate it if a moderator could atleast temporarily keep this user from editing articles. Necro 00:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable. --Khoikhoi 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Naconkantari e|t||c|m 02:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ajdz 03:36, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Kill with fire. It's like forumcruft ad libs: Generic off-topic forum came to be when everyone who actually wanted to talk about the site's subject kicked all the jokers and trolls off into their own junk forum. It has some not particularly funny joke thread, and has had administrator ever since ex-administrator entered into some particularly lame drama. Fads include some stuff that wasn't funny a year ago on SA/Fark/Slashdot, some insultingly basic internet slang, and ongoing joke making fun of rival forum. I don't see any reason we need yet another one of these. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP.~~This is getting old having users who know nothing about the history, origin, or relevance of this site already attempting to have the article removed. There are countless and pointless articles posted into Wikipedia which other users won't touch for the sake of losing face to ignorance. I suppose because YOU have not heard of these board automatically marks it for deletion because it isn't based on someone you don't know? Keep the article, get rid of the delete-happy Wiki users. Lucavious 09:54, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I struck your "keep" because you can't vote twice, but your commentary, of course, is still welcome. The best way to defend the article is by citing how it meets the consensually-approved guidelines at WP:WEB. NickelShoe (Talk) 18:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is for a forum inhabited by a bunch of 15-20 year olds who make poop/gay sex jokes to fuel their entertainment. It has no purpose on Wikipedia whatsoever, and it's members are just trying to be some sort of internet pioneers by having this article stay alive. Undoubtably they'll claim they're the first message board to ever be on wikipedia and hold that idea as some sort of sacred accomplishment for the community, as they do everything else that occurs there (See: Brian Peppers tomfoolery) Just delete it. —This unsigned comment was added by 24.60.215.134 (talk • contribs) .

Delete Non-notable, non-verifiable, and furthermore stupid. Ashibaka tock 14:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to note that the 1UP boards in general ranks 2,751 on Alexa, and not without a ranking as suggested, Google results are more than 35, the number stated before, though it varies by search terms, and if we are to hold the same standards, including WP:WEB and Verifiability, that are being used as excuses to try and delete the article on EGM NGR, the following on the page are some of the articles which should be nominated for deletion. I skimmed through a quarter to fifth of the list at random and yet found a list consisting of:

TrekBBS

Nintendo NSider Forums

GamerPlug (already up for deletion)

GameFAQs message boards

HK Golden Forum

Hip Forums

MiceChat

Placeboforum (already up for deletion)

Yet I don't see any intense "waste of space" cries on deletion pages for these, all of them failing WP:WEB, and unverifiable or unvarified to an ignorant degree thus far. -- Viewdrix 22:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment arguing there are other articles on Wikipedia that fail the same test that this one does is a very poor argument for keeping this one. You are encouraged to list these articles on AfD if you feel they do not meet WP:WEB. Gwernol 22:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The list was merely expressing my wonder in why this article has been singled out. Perhaps because it hasn't grown to give itself a false sense of justification that seems to pass unquestioned for other articles. Nonetheless, my points of the Alex rank and Google Hits are unaffected either way. -- Viewdrix 00:26, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DeleteThere is probably an interesting, deep history of this board to be told, but it is COMPLETELY non-encyclopedic! I suggest a member of the 1up EGM Messageboards installs MediaWiki on his/her website so this community can revel in its localized in-jokes, references, and trends, because the content of this article has no relevance to anyone else beyond the tiny community. I should also note that I am a member of the 1up community, albeit a one who rarely posts. As for other forums with wikis that are as or less notable than this one, they should be deleted too -- point them out, and we'll get rid of them. THe only forum with a wiki article I can think of is the Gaming Age Forums, which receives far more posts, visitors, and respect; it has a number of notable industry and media posters and regularly influences the videogaming media. If the 1up EGM NGR (Non gaming related, ahem) rival other forums, with wiki articles, in terms of influence, visitors, and prominence in the online community, I would not want this article deleted.

edit: perhaps the EGM boards could receive mention in the main EGM article as a sub-entry. It's a stretch, but that's as close to wikipedia as I'd want them coming.

edit2: EGM NGR already has a place for their history and other self-important articles: http://egmngr.com/. There's absolutely no reason for this article to exist. Please speedy/permanent delete for the last time (this article was created and deleted before).--Senseiireland 03:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: That's not a fair statement at all. Just because a website has a History section, does that mean it automatically should be deleted from Wikipedia? No. The WEB pages of Wikipedia aren't reserved solely for websites that don't have their own History pages or such for visitors. -- Viewdrix 18:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Sorry if I wasn't clear, but earlier in my post I suggested they create their own website built on the wikipedia software since this wasn't encyclopedia-worthy, although I could see how the history of their small board could mean something to them (everything to them, nothing to us). When I discovered that they already did have a place for vanity articles, I wondered aloud why this page existed in the first place. Is that more clear?--Senseiireland 01:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this page was on big-boards's list, it would be ranked 1332 out of 1600 messageboards: http://rankings.big-boards.com/?p=all

--Senseiireland 03:53, 27 March 2006 (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.