Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BodyBuilding.com Forums

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 merge and redirect to BodyBuilding.com. For all those who voted to delete after the content was moved BodyBuilding.com note that in order to maintain author attribution as required by the GFDL, merge/delete is not a valid course of action. howcheng {chat} 17:16, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an advertisement/spam article based on a message board; page history suggests it was created by a select few that often add nonsense, etc. Jay (Reply) 03:21, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

• This entry is pretty much pointless and should be deleted. Why should a forum have an entry in an encyclopedia? Oh yeah PIITB

• The site itself appears to have a high Alexa rating, but I agree that this article in its current form cannot be kept. (vote below) Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:24, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Site has been cleaned up and is fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.249.45.80 (talk • contribs)

• i started the article, and would like it to be kept up. i will be adding more information. there are some stupid people on the boards. is there anyway that only I can edit the page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)

• With a little bit of change I see no reason why it should be deleted, as it appears to be one of the largest sites devoted to the subject of bodybuilding NorseOdin 03:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Awful article, I find it pointless and uninteresting. It needs to be destroyed quickly. {{smonkey}}
  • Totally agree {{smonkey}}
  • "Awful article": Removing my talking points from this page constitutes vandalism, you hypocrite. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
  • I am reporting your IP. --Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
    • Ohhh give it a rest. You're going to "report his IP" because he insulted an article? Who did you "report" it to? Anyway, delete per nom. --Cyde Weys _vote^talk 17:19, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It is one of the biggest forums on the internet, and a bona fide cultural phenomenon in itself. What sort of prejudice causes you to list it for deletion, "Master" Jay? If Wikipedia's supremacy over stuff like Britannica is its coverage of more current and popular topics (as well as the more obscure) then why SHOULDN'T descriptions of major internet communities be included? And why do inane blog sites like FARK (which don't even surround a discipline, like Bodybuilding) remain on Wikipedia, undeleted? . If anything the article needs to be cleaned up, but deletion? Stop being a damned Wiki snob, snobs like you are going to kill Wikipedia. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)

• Also, deletion motion is a complete fallacy. There is no advertisement for products, and no spamming included, or intended for the future. Page may be rapidly edited due to the actions of a few people who do not understand wikipedia protocol, but this is not the fault of the site itself, nor the owners of the site, and the case for a permanent page is as strong as the case for any other internet site. I make a countermotion that the ridiculous deletion tag be REMOVED. FWIW vandals have been warned to respect Wikipedia protocol. If they can't oblige, then ban them, but don't take it out on this page. -Mantis — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.92.166.251 (talk • contribs)
• i totally agree with mantis above. this is the point of wikipedia. its to have a free encyclopedia full of info that you cant find anywhere else. i will continue to work on the article and make it 100x better — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joedirtbody (talk • contribs)

• Keep but cleanup - Get rid of the unencyclopedic stuff but the forum is clearly popular enough to merit an encyclopedic article. FCYTravis 04:11, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but cleanup, per FCYTravis. Alexa rating suggests that this website/forum is notable enough for inclusion, but the article needs serious work. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:13, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: You are aware that the alexa ranking is for the entire site, not just the forums, right? As their front page says, they have "Over 17,000 pages of bodybuilding and fitness information with content updated every single day", so much of that traffic is going elsewhere on the site. They also have an extensive store. User:Zoe|^(talk) 04:17, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but serious cleanup - let's give the article a chance to grow; we can always delete it later if it is absolutely necessary. In the meantime, please make an effort to clean up the article. --HappyCamper 04:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The site should have an article, not its forum. JoaoRicardo^talk 04:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per JoaoRicardo. Pavel Vozenilek 04:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If someone wants to write a better article, they can always recreate it.
• Delete per JoaoRicardo. Flyboy Will 09:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the second thought, Keep, per precedent set by Something Awful and Something Awful Forums, for example. With the member size as it is, the forums are a pretty distinct entity from the main site. Flyboy Will 09:38, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to BodyBuilding.com and expand to an article about the whole site. Alexa rating of 1728 [1] -- Astrokey44|talk 14:08, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete alexa ranking is for the website not the forums. plus organized campaigns to "save" articles by its vested interest members is automatically reason to delete. Zzzzz 15:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is that exactly, if the site is notable, why should we be persuaded by the immaturity of its members? Can't sleep, clown will eat me 16:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • its not the site thats up for deletion, its the forum, which is nothing more than the sum of its members, & their behaviour confirms this as a vanity article. vested-interest vfk's are inherently suspect. Zzzzz 16:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as advertising. Fails to verify claim of notability: a popular website does not automatically translate into a notable forum. Durova 16:27, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a large forum is not in itself notable. McPhail 16:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As McPhail just mentioned, being a large forum with a high Alexa ranking is worthless if you don't have notability. - CorbinSimpson 18:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, obviously. The Alexa rank for the entire bodybuilding.com ___domain is 1,728. [2] The forum itself has 130,000 members. The inclusion guidelines at WP:WEB state, and I quote:

  A website's impact can be demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following criteria:

  1. Having been the subject of national or international media attention;
  2. A forum with more than 5,000 users that has made a verifiable impact beyond its own user community; or
  3. Having an Alexa ranking of 10,000 or better.

  Read it and then read it again. —RaD Man (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(1) no nat/internat attention, (2) no impact beyond its own user community, (3) this article is about the *forum* not the *website*. why are you quoting the "entire bodybuilding.com ___domain" figures? Zzzzz 19:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, redirect this to BodyBuilding.com if you feel that way; redirects are cheap. —RaD Man (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to rename this article "bodybuilding.com" would be a misrepresentation as the article is not *about* bodybuilding.com, its about the forums. so deletion is the only way. if somebody wants to create "bodybuilding.com" and write about the website and why its notable, thats an entirely other issue. Zzzzz 19:42, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion is not the only way, and I'm not sure why you think that. You seem to have a gigantic misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works. —RaD Man (talk) 19:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no impact beyond its own community. Stifle 13:18, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete merge the fact that forums exist with Bodybuilding.com and leave as redirect. If there is enough content to later warrant a split that will happen naturally. Right now I don't see content worth keeping at all. In sayings should be documented on the site rather than the article, (no one other than readers benefits from the information so why document it here?) unless they have wide currency, and lists of celebrities mentioned are not encyclopedic. ++Lar 15:34, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Whatever little/basic information was here has already been put into the BodyBuilding.com article. I don't believe anyone would look for this article seperately. No reason to Keep now. - Liontamer 21:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on a second please - having the article listed here does not mean that it will necessarily be deleted. As it currently stands, there is no consensus to delete, and by default, the article will remain on Wikipedia. For the duration of this deletion debate, please focus on improving the article so that it meets basic encyclopedic standards. The article will be deleted or kept based on its merits, so it is advisable to improve on article content first - the article content should speak for itself, and the closing administrator will take this into account. You do not need to worry about this article being deleted if it contains content that is of quality and substantiated. --HappyCamper 04:07, 23 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.