Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/G4TV Off Topic Forum

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, closing early per WP:SNOW, although I admit to being midly curious as to what barley nude might mean. Just zis Guy you know? 21:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Completely POV, a single section of a forum is really not notable, and there is little to no content that is not either POV or about other non-notable people. Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, totally unnecessary. Aplomado ^talk 01:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. VegaDark 01:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just for the record, the most blatant POV was taken out while I was nominating, so not as bad now, but really still an unnecessary article. Condense to a couple sentences in the forum section on the G4tv article, or an article on all the forums as a whole if they are popular enough to warrent one, but an article for just a section of forums, clearly not major enough to have any great info about it.. nah. -Goldom 莨夊ｩｱ 謚慕ｨｿ 01:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Subsection of an individual forum. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not noteworhty in any way, a forum at a website for a TV channel. - Patman2648 01:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination --Mhking 02:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Funnybunny (^talk/_QRVS) 02:44, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per nomination.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.193.171.178 (talk • contribs)

• Huh? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. --DaemonLee 03:51, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I put the prod tag on it before it wound up here, so I'm certainly in support of deleting it. -RaCha'ar 03:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 03:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable forumcruft. JIP | Talk 06:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why is this here? ... discospinster 19:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wow, quite a few edits to the article since this was listed on AfD. The editors seem to be labouring under the mistaken impression that we delete articles based on lack of quality, rather than the lack of notability of their subjects. And, yes, a subsection of a forum that probably doesn't pass on its own is non-notable. ergot 22:54, 15 May 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.