Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Gameplanet

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 keep. Mailer Diablo 12:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Gameplanet

Template:AfdAnons This article is nothing but an advertisement for a bunch of non-notable individuals and a lot of it is just nonsense to boot (I'm curious to know what sort of "regular event" "meat" is, for one thing). I'm tempted to nominate this page for speedy deletion but I've decided to go through with just a standard deletion nomination for now.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 06:31, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • The Articles former crap quality was due to defacement, not unworthy subject matter. Vote: Do not delete. - Lemonus
  • No need to jump the gun, all it needs is a little polish. The main problem is everyone who thinks they're someone wants to be mentioned in the article. - Okelix
  • "regular event" such as a "meat" also known as a "meet", you know, where humans meet other humans, and trade humourous anecdotes about horses and other victorian era gems.--Subwaynz 08:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Conrad, if it would help put your mind at rest, regarding the advertising issue the gameplanet forums have absolutely nothing to do with the GP store. I presume GP store is mentioned in the article as it was the same persons that begun both of them (That's my understanding anyway). -massive —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Discosteve (talk • contribs) 21:56, 31 May 2006.


  • Eesh, certainly not an advertisement. Agreed that it was crap for a while though. - Zealot —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 210.55.230.121 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 31 May 2006.
  • Keep, cleanup and remove non-notable trivia; the site is notable within the New Zealand online community. This is an extremely high traffic website (the forum has over 40k members and is ranked 166 on Big Boards) and it has received minor national coverage in NZ media both in the wake of a celeb drugs scandal and as an award-winning site ([1]). --Muchness 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Is there any other verifiable claim to notability except that one web award? Low Alexa rank. The drug scandal claims are whoppingly unimpressive — some people speculated about celebrity names and guessed some right??? If the site is notable the article should concentrate on that instead of listing some guys' screen names and random mentions about a radio chat show host once reading a line from a web forum. Chatty unverifiable trivia makes the site appear less notable. Weregerbil 10:49, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep the page. Gameplanet forums is undeniably the biggest online community in New zealand, and thus deserves a Wikipedia article. All it needs is a little work. Wedge 203.97.255.197 11:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The article just needs some pruning, which it was in the process of when Mr Conrad here decided that a forty thousand some member community is not deserving of an article. Maybe a little more fencing will fix your boredom, EN GARDE -Lemonus
  • Comment Alexa isnt everything mate, its spyware which increasing numbers of people have removed. but if you must, this is a report from ac neilson netratings [2], and of course it isnt going to rank highly worldwide, its a New Zealand Based Forum and out of a population of over 4 million, a 40k member base makes it the largest forum in the country. The media in question did not specifically refer to Gameplanet forums, but in the video items gp was clearly visible. This was to prevent any legal repercusions. But If you think this is bad, wait till you see the something awful wiki. Btw, do you like trolling and annoying people cause you have no life?. --Subwaynz 11:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Oh and, by the way, the drugs scandal case was a very very important case in nz. it capitivated the media in nz for about a week, and the primary focus was on the information leak on the internet THROUGH GPFORUMS which identified the celebrities involved. And it is in the process of being written, you may or may not notice, but it is nigh on 24 hours old, and hasnt been completed yet. --Subwaynz 11:27, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment To those who disagree with this nomination, I apologise if you feel my deletion proposal was hasty and that this subject is notable. I'm not very knowledgable about online gaming communities nor am I from New Zealand, but I assumed that if this article was about a notable subject it would have been in just a little better shape than it was. Here is the diff just before I nominated it for deletion: [3]. Take a look at it and hopefully you'll understand my motivation for deleting it. Oh and by the way, I was contemplating nominating it for a speedy deletion but thought that it might have some redeeming value so instead nominated it for a standard deletion so that attention might be brought to its problems and those who opposed deletion could voice their opinions.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 16:58, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Delete WP:WEB sorry. Dominick (TALK) 18:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment Gpforums won an award in the netguide web awards for best entertainment site, that meets your criteria for web based content on wiki mate. --Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I have removed the rest of that nonsense about "notable members", so that is no longer an issue. If this nomination continues, notability of the site should be the only concern.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I think not Conrad. The content concerning those notable members is there for a reason sgt molloy was actually convicted. we consider him a notable individual. I will continue to edit this back too, considering the content that is allowed in such pages as [something awful]--Subwaynz 23:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Comment I don't think it's valid to compare Gameplanet (Alexa=95,068) to SomethingAwful (Alexa=1,870). Be aware of the WP:3RR rule if you plan on getting into an edit war regarding those sections. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment There is nothing of that nature in the Something Awful article. SubSeven 00:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep WP:WEB passage is borderline; while it may be large in New Zealand, I'm not sure I understand why NZ would have a distinct gaming culture? Most other forums of this nature are international. OhNoitsJamieTalk 00:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. No media sources, non-notable. Only thing going for it is that it's a Google News source. Can someone find a mention of this site in some media? Fagstein 02:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep per Shaun Olsen's source below. Fagstein 07:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. But what does New Zealand's largest newspaper know anyway?[4] -Shaun Olsen 06:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep Note Something Awful's Personalities subsection. If you delete our notable members section, then i will delete theirs, simple. and im sure you dont want the sa members on your back now do you. --Subwaynz 07:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Comment No. Those are not forum members; those are the contributors to the Something Awful web site. If you look at the Something Awful Forums article, you will see that there is no notable members section. SubSeven 18:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Cease and desist Subway, You manage to find the absolutely wrong way to try and go about things at every opportunity. Lemonus
  • Comment Lemon, when hypocrisy from an admin even, i feel that its the last option. Wikipedia is full or so many one eyed editors, i not only feel that our notable members section is justified, all you need to look at is the admin response that the two sections differ. i think not. pull your head in jamie. --Subwaynz 07:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Damn it Subway, you aren't helping ANYONE now, not even yourself. -Shaun Olsen
  • Comment I cant believe you guys, here it is, an admin with blatant hypocrisy, trying to tell us that the members noted on something awful's wiki are any more notable than our notable members. like hell!!!. i have pointed this out, yet jamie continues to disagree with the reasoning and facets of the concensus. once the day rolls around again i will revert it back, because i know im right, and the wiki policies prove this. but im not risking a 3rr ban. --Subwaynz 10:33, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Come on now, why does it matter to you if people know about such-and-such a member wanting to join the French Foreign Legion or not?--Conrad Devonshire Talk 02:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Do you not take a hint conrad? If you agree that the notable members section in the Something Awful Wiki is legitimate, then there is no reason the gpforums notable members wiki shouldnt be allowed too. Care to delete theirs at the same time? Or is it only cause your biased towards SA and wont delete theirs, when it is quite clearly the same. --Subwaynz 04:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- r2b2 03:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
    • What are you talking about? I don't know anything about the "Something Awful Wiki".--Conrad Devonshire Talk 05:02, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I'll fill you in then. The Something Awful is populated by a very similar section, called Personalities. It contains the psuedonym of the Member and Why the Member is there. I see a great similarity between the two, and cannot differentiate a difference between the two, other than the context, that the Personalities as mentioned also maintain editing the Main Page for Something Awful. --Subwaynz 05:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep without notable members section r2b2 04:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Subway you enormous god damn tard. Those people arent that notable, honestly, and his point about something awful member section being only writes and important front page people, he is correct. GET A CLUE. - Lemonus
  • Comment Knowing nothing of the Something Awful entries, I took a look to see how they compare with regards to the "personalites" sections. Personally I see the Something Awful entry itself as more of an entry about a type of publication (as it appears to have articles rather than freeform chat which would be the Something Awful Forum). If you take Something Awful itself and compare it to, say, The Times or Washington Post (taking two other publications at random), you'll note that the two paper entries have a notable contributors section. The Something Awful Forum entry doesn't. (I'm from NZ btw) r2b2 06:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. I'm from NZ, never heard of it, but it seems to have some notablity within NZ, and please keep it civil. Insulting people does NOT help your argument. --Midnighttonight 02:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


  • Comment Subway, cool it. You've got too much personal stake in this it seems. Hey Conrad, come back and respark the relative vs. absolute debate your thread turned into. ;)

--Cynos

  • keep notable, even I have heard of it :) Brian | (Talk) 12:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment My god this is frustrating, everyone seems to think just because they dont know of something that they feel it is not relevant, while this is a broad comment, it is what the users of wikipedia feel. the whole idea of an encyclopadia is to provide a medium to collate information from the world around us. why do i go to wikipedia? to learn about something i have no idea about/havent heard of. If i was a prospective forum member and i wanted to learn about gpforums, and i went to wikipedia, i then learnt all about gpforums, and i saw the notable members aspect, and when i DID join gpforums i would know why people post replies of why they hate wushu, or brock. It is not about why a United States wikipedia user doesnt know about someone or a topic (from nz). I just think that people should stick their noses where its actually wanted. The notable members part complied with wiki policies, sgt molloy was featured in the mainstream media. So, however much you think your the expert on everything world wide, your not. The notable members are an integral part of gpforums and is what makes gpforums what it is today. If you dont like it, or havent heard of it, but it complies with wiki policies, then dont be a knob and delete it, wikipedia is diverse, so is the world. Thats what an encyclopedia is designed to do.--Subwaynz 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Aside from "Sgt. Molloy" who was mentioned in the news, none of those members are notable anywhere outside of Gameplanet itself, so they shouldn't be here. I have left Sgt. Molloy here for now, but I should also mention that his real name needs to be mentioned in the article if he is to stay.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 19:21, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
  • keep Well known throughout NZ, I personally am not a member but have heard it mensioned in the media in NZ several times. Stevee2 07:26, 5 June 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.
Retrieved from "http://debianws.lexgopc.com/wiki143/index.php?title=Wiki143:Articles_for_deletion/Gameplanet&oldid=2930770"