Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free game 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 03:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam. Unlikely to be notable. Zero Google hits on their URL. Difficult to Google on their name (which on their website is given as "Games Forum", not "Free Games Forum") because combinations of "Free", "Games", and "Forum" are everywhere; however they do come up as #1 on free games-forum. Website looks nothing special. Any Australians know about this? Herostratus 01:47, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not being particularly involved in Games I don't know but I will place the appropriate messages. WP:WEB is the appropriate policy to use. Capitalistroadster 02:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletions. . Capitalistroadster 02:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It claims 33,000 registered users which would meet the general criteria in WP:WEB, but about a quarter of these are listed as 'never logged in' which sounds a bit suss. Looking at a one page sample (I chose "M") of members with more than one post is 40% which would still leave them with > 10,000 members. IanBailey ^(talk) 03:11, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unless some claim to encyclopedicity can be found. As has been discussed, pages like this have an inherent failing: There's nothing to expand. What, encyclopedic, do you write about a forum? The number of users? The stupid user dramas? Who's a moderator and who isn't? Unless a forum has had an impact on the world outside its user community, it is not likely to be encyclopedic. If verifiable sources can be found that discuss the forum in question, my vote will be reconsidered. FCYTravis 05:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and agree 100% with FCYTravis above. To be brutally honest, very little of any encyclopedic value can be said about the vast majority of forums. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:18, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - self-promotional and the three contributors (Zena, Luffy 747 and Rex. look suspiciously like sock puppets. Tim Pierce 21:55, 8 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete promotion, vanity.--MONGO 01:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per FCYTravis Just zis  Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] (W) AfD? 09:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Travis. Sarah Ewart 09:42, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Roisterer 03:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ambi 11:49, 10 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.