Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General Mayhem (2nd nomination)


 * 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   delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

General Mayhem
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

While the article seems to be heavily referenced, almost none of the articles mention this forum at all. It's supposedly citation of its rank on big-boards.com is not true according to the website itself (it doesn't look like it ranks in the top 2000 even). The two items in the supposed "controversy" section aren't really that controversial. For the first, none of the links actually mention the forum and the second Walken one the website is only briefly mentioned as the possible originator. There really aren't any reliable sources showing this website's notability. Wickethewok (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The ranking on big-boards.com is near-accurate, it's currently (11/19/2010) fallen to #59. It's difficult to find since it's under the name General [M] ayhem, which means normal searching won't find it.ThAlEdison (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Keep - ThAlEdison is right, it's on BigBoards as General [M] ayhem, and its size according to that source is sufficient to found a claim of notability even before turning to the other sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete No, this forum's traffic totals are not sufficient to found a claim of notability before turning to other sources. That is simply inaccurate. Notability has nothing to do with web traffic as defined by any source. Notability depends upon reliable, significant coverage in independent sources, of the actual topic at hand (and not, say, the result of actions undertaken by the topic). I do not see anything like significant coverage in third-party sources on this topic. I see traffic statistics and coverage of events related to more notable topics than this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡ  bomb  09:47, 1 December 2010 (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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.