Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Internet 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 was no consensus. One two three... 20:59, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Internet forums

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to be a target for linkspam, and also seems to promote certain forums. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 17:47, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:CLS. The list can be expanded and improved. Compare with Category:Internet forums. — Rankiri (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - inclusion criterion too vast (indiscriminate, though the proper WP:NOT guideline is actually in WP:NOTDIR). Actual list at the moment is a tiny non-representative sample of internet forums, but a representative list would be unmanageable.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:32, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WTAF. As most Wikipedia lists and disambiguation pages, the list is limited to notable entries. It's certainly not unmaintainable. — Rankiri (talk) 22:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment if you include constantly changing quantities such as the number of posts and the number of members (in "exact" numbers instead of size approximations) as the current version of the article does, then how can you maintain it? Right now the Something Awful numbers on the page are off by about 6 millions for posts and 5000 for members...--137.122.49.102 (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the numerical columns present a problem, but if the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. — Rankiri (talk) 14:15, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The numbers might be a bit off, but the list still reflects the relative sizes of the forums. I think that is the most important information here. One way to improve the list is perhaps to add another column with the timestamp of when the individual post and member counts were collected. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. But I agree that the current list is small compared to Category:Internet forums, so more forums from there should be included. The list gives a size comparison that the category does not. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this list topic fails WP:NOT#DIR as it does not have a definition in accordance WP:LISTS#List content without which it is just listcruft without any externally validated rationale for inclusion in Wikipedia. A list needs some form of external validation in accordance with WP:BURDEN to demonstrate that it is not entirely novel or the product of synthesis, and looking at the content of this list, its lack of souring that suggest it is entirely made up of unrelated topics stitched together to create an entirely novel list topic that has never been published before. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 08:10, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The inclusion criteria is stated in the lede, but should be more explicit: The intention is to include only forums that have an article on Wikipedia, thereby ensuring notability. You might have a point w.r.t. synthesis, but only if the stats are not taken from the respective Wikipedia articles. I disagree that the list is made up of unrelated topics (or maybe I just don't understand what you mean). It's a list of Internet forums, and many (all?) are in the Category:Internet forums. The list can be improved with additional columns such as one for forum software (vBulletin, phpBB, etc.), year of launch, etc. To me it seems like a better idea to try to improve the list rather than to delete it. TheLastNinja (talk) 08:29, 20 April 2010 (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.