Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AppleAddict Forums

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dan Parnell (talk | contribs) at 01:29, 21 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

AppleAddict Forums

Note that this is not a vote, and any attempts by forum users to stuff the ballot box will likely be ignored. Ral315 (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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 - 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.
    • Unsigned- could someone please find who this was?
  • 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
  • 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]
    • 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. User:ASDamick/sig 20:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
  • 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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/AppleAddict_Forums&oldid=32179716"