Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Loob


 * 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.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 02:27, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Loob
Non notable web forum. Has 130 members. See Talk:Loob. Delete. gadfium 05:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable Ande B. 06:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. 130 members is non-notable. Kala  ni  [talk] 06:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is a group of people with no assertion of notability. I've tagged it with . --Rory096 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Other online forums have their own pages on Wikipedia Hauser 09:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB particularly the bit The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. - a 3 month old small forum does not get over the line - Peripitus 10:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. If we had an article for every forum with 100 members wikipedia would be flooded with them.-- A n d e h 11:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * merge into Craccum. --Midnighttonight 23:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- this should *not* be merged with Craccum; Loob is almost entirely separate from Craccum, and is in no way officially sanctioned by the magazine, AUSA or the University of Auckland. --Hugh 01:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Very well, then it should be deleted entirely. --Rory096 04:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This forum is well known through the University Of Auckland and is home to many of the contributors of Craccum. Loob has also facilitated a few notorious web pranks that are worth a mension (e.g The Myspace one that got notice on SA & printed in Craccum). Stevee2 02:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - I live in NZ and have never heard of this web forum - plus it could hardly be classed as an historic forum since its only been around (in its existing persona) since february.. r2b2 04:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:WEB.  OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Neither - Please read Defence against Speedy Deletion on the discussion page of the article before commenting. The relevant history is the article was listed for speedy deletion after one scentence had been written - at which point the author, (me) stopped writing it. (It has since been breifly expanded by other hands). The present afD listing is an attempt to retrospectively correct the original error of listing the article for speedy deletion but is flawed as the article remains unwritten - there is no point in puting effort into something which may not last 5 days.    To delete the article at this point is to judge the article in an embryonic state and reward the intial breach of Wikipedia policy. Winstonwolfe 01:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody needs to judge it by its current state to realize it should be deleted. It's an internet forum with 130 members! --Rory096 03:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - All that has to be done to avoid deletion is to assert notability. It doesn't have to be an article full of sparkling prose.  In all the comments left here, on my talk page, and on the article's talk page, I have yet to see one real assertion of notability.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that that's all that has to be done to avoid speedy deletion, not regular deletion. --Rory096 03:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Re Comment - Well at least there was a 7 minute delay before that reply :-). There are assertions of notability on the discussion page, and above, and who knows, there may even be one in the article.  On the afD process c.f. speedy deletion, there is a discretion to delete the article if there is no notability, not just assertions of notability. But the question is whether that discretion should be exercised, despite the lack of due process shown in listing the article for deletion.  Either way,  I think we may set an interesting precedent.Winstonwolfe 02:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - as I noted in my revision of the entry, the site has close links with Craccum despite its very small size in terms of membership. Were it not for the fact that the site isn't officially linked to Craccum, I'd support it being merged into Craccum as Midnighttonight has suggested, but I think it merits continued existence. Samf-nz 04:25, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Just because it's not linked to Craccum doesn't mean it's notable enough for an article. --Rory096 04:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious delete. I would support speedy as  per Rory:  although it's very marginal as a speedy candidate, I still don't see an assertion of notibility.  bikeable (talk) 04:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Whether the tagging process was correct of not (and it appears to me it was), it doesn't change the fact the article does not meet WP:WEB.  Rockpock e  t  05:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Small web forum, I see no evidence that this is notable. -- SCZenz 08:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete speaking as the original author, I give up - while I find it worrying that the majority don't see the due process issue here, this is just not worth the fuss it's generating. Winstonwolfe 05:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, got to keep things in perspective Stevee2 11:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
 * In terms of the procedural issue (discussed further on the article's talk page); Wikipedia does not prescribe to natural justice, and often deletions are supported for reasons other than (or despite) the ones initially given. Z iggurat 06:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (weak). If I didn't take into account the guidelines I'd say it's just on the keep side of notability - it's fairly well known around campus. Maybe. And that just campus, to say nothing of anyone else in the entire world. And when I take into account that the established guidelines are pretty clearly against it... --Dom 12:27, 8 June 2006 (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.