Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ro-Guardians

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. – Rob ert 00:33, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ro-Guardians

An article about a non-notable fourm of a website. 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:12, 26 February 2006 (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}}.

Keep Notable forum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jeezer (talk • contribs) 08:53, 26 February 2006.
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
- Comment - how notable? As I said before, it only has 906 Google hits. --Khoikhoi 08:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. Perhaps not in the US but in the Malaysian/Singaporean district and it has a total members of 12000+. How can it not be notable? Jeezer
Keep Think that it's a rather good forum and worthy to be kept. Bombardment 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
Keep Notable forum of a highly popular game.DericStevens 09:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:17Z
Keep Fairly notable site. AlexLimTehChok 09:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User's first edit —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:16Z
Ro-Guardians forum thread re. Wikipedia article —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:25Z
Delete. No evidence that it meets WP:WEB in having verifiable sources of its influence on the outside world. Capitalistroadster 10:18, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable despite 12,000 users. Ragnarok Online already xlinks to ro-guardians.com. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-02-26 10:27Z
Delete, per nom. 10:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Delete. The policy on this issue is clear. This is not yet notable or big enough to warrant a page of its own. Batmanand | Talk 11:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable. (A rundhati Bakshi (talk • contribs)) 11:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 11:35, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Edgar181 12:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per CapitalistRoadster. It's hard to imagine how any fansite could be notable, unless perhaps it demonstrably changes the commercial product about which it enthuses. (As for affecting the outside world. . ) While the article is written in charmingly loopy English (for me, a minor unintended plus), it edges toward libel at one place near its end (a major minus). -- Hoary 15:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hoary's comments. I'm all for large, primary fansites having articles provided notability is established, but this ain't that. Kuru ^talk 17:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sure, this forum sounds notable since it has a bunch of members, but how much encyclopedic information about the site is out there? Enough to fill an article?

The members of Ro-Guardians are known to be friendly, however we do have a few cases where members go wild and start flaming, insulting others and posting irrelevant/obscene materials. These members will be immediately banned by the admin for such childish behaviours.

Isn't this true of every internet forum? And how much of the section about Gameflier is truth/POV? Isopropyl 18:07, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB per Capitalistroadster. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable website / webforum. — Adrian~enwiki (talk) 20:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 14:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn website and forum. --Ter e nc e Ong 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:WEB. Daniel Case 14:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unremarkable. -- Krash (Talk) 14:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn. Crzrussian 19:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn as [{WP:WEB]] Compu terjoe 21:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn forum --Colonel Cow 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm starting to see a bad trend here, where people view Wikipedia as a collection of web links ("Hey, it comes up in Google a lot, so it must be notable! We need to get on there!"), and suddenly everyone wants to get their own site on Wikipedia. Not every web site is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. WP:NOT seems to apply here. --Elkman 00:29, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, sockpuppet-supported. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:19, 2 March 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.