Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaming Age 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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS. Discounting Duderon (total of 2 edits), I would normally pretty much rely on an 8d-3k to be a delete. However, A Man In Black has comprehensively rewritten the article and persuaded at least one former deleter to be a keeper. In this case, I'm not sure there is a consensus given the new information in the article, and I think that VfU would be likely to undelete+relist this. A renomination may be appropriate for the sake of clarity. -Splash talk 00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Gaming Age Forums
Non notable website, vanity piece. Both forum and main site rank low on big-boards and Alexa respectively, considerably below IGN Message Boards and Gamefaqs message boards which are arguably more relevant. Stx 11:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Al 12:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep the re-write. Al 15:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment I don't know if it should be deleted, but do please review the edit history and the continual vandalism of this page when thinking about it. I've never been to GAF and, based on how they describe themselves, will never go there, but I'm spending a few minutes every week rolling back nonsense or vandalism from this page. --Habap 16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Vandalizing this page is one of the favorite hobbies of the posters of a rival forum, unfortunately. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Just an average VBulletin forum. Doesn't seem special. Kushboy 16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete NN forum. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. Dottore So 19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Jwissick  (t)  (c)  22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
 * DeleteIt is not important Opa-ages
 * Delete, non-notable forum on a non-notable website. The Gaming Age website doesn't have an article, so why should its forum be considered more important?  Also, a side note: Google gives 635,000 hits for "Gaming Age" but only displays 28 of them. --Idont Havaname 05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Because the site doesn't much matter. The forums aren't an adjunct to Gaming-Age; they are independently administrated, and largely more popular than the GA site. Alexa backs this up: 87% of the gaming-age.com domain's hits are to forum.gaming-age.com or forums.gaming-age.com. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. I'm gonna take a crack a rewriting this, but this is a significant gaming forum, particularly as a barameter of gaming culture in general. I'm also not sure why the nominator said it ranks low on BigBoards and Alexa; it's ranked #24 in traffic on BigBoards, and has a fairly decent rank of about 12,500 on Alexa (despite splitting its traffic between forums.gaming-age.com and a handful of alternate domains). For the number-addicted, it has nearly 2 million posts (this despite automated deletion of stale threads after a certain time), and nearly 8000 registered users (despite requiring administrator approval to register an account). This is emphatically not a vanity advertisement listing; this is a peer of the IGN and Gamespot boards in traffic and influence. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I've edited the page to be a little less vain and in-jokey, including a mention of notable posters (people who are notable as something other than GAF posters, not a "OMG KEWL POSTERS" list). - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. This Opa Ages/Gaming Age blather has gone on long enough. - Lucky 6.9 05:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * As far as I can tell, being annoyed at trolls isn't a criterion for deletion. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep With A Man In Black's revisions, I think it is a good article, worth keeping. --Habap 13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep I also agree with A Man In Black's revisions. To highlight some reasons why the GAF should have a Wiki article. Many game developers and major game media names visit the site. The forums are very active with around 1000 users online during weekdays and GAF is still growing. 2 million + posts have been achieved in less than a year and a half, since NeoGAF's incarnation, and the forums contain a wealth of information for the average user. Duderon 20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.