Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OffTopic.com


 * 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 keep. Babajobu 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

OffTopic.com
Unencyclopedic overinflation of itself. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 21:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep — it's actually a very notable message board (6th largest in the world), and it's pretty well known. Its Alexa traffic rank is 9,682. It really has started quite a few phenomena, so I'm going to vote keep for the moment.  —bbatsell  ¿?  21:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Could be cleaned up to be written in a more encyclopedic manner, but seems notable enough to have on Wikipedia. VegaDark 22:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.WTF you guys always want to delete this page. For crying out loud you have a page on FART freakin gas out the anus and you want to delete this page because "Unencyclopedic overinflation of itself".  OMMFG  freakin Wiki NAZI's. //rant  Please keep for historical sake. -offtopic user — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.170.127.155 (talk • contribs)
 * Whoever you are, these AfDs are based on consensus, not pure votes, so someone like you, who doesn't edit WP, will not be counted nearly as much as regular contributors. -- Rory 0 96
 * Delete;- if the information didn't seem like such a glaring advertisement I "might" have went with a weak delete, or weak keep. 3H 05:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep It's a huge board and definitely the origin of internet memes. Would the jealous parties please stop submitting VFDs? Jordanmills 14:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep. The board is larger than Something Awful.  The O RLY? owl and Peanut Butter Jelly Time, some of the most notable internet memes in existence, both originated here.  I concur that it's sub-par, but if we combine it with the last version of Offtopic.com, which I recall being rather good, and improve it a bit, it should be more than sufficient. -- Rory 0 96 20:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: An article on this topic was previously deleted. See Articles for deletion/Offtopic.com.  I believe that this version is sufficiently different that it does not qualify for speedy-deletion as re-created content.  However, many of the objections raised in that previous discussion remain valid.  The sole claims of visibility/notability seem to be around membership and/or traffic yet the site's Alexa ranking is fluctuating around 10,000.  That's quite a bit worse than our generally accepted inclusion standards.  Does this site meet any of the other criteria at WP:WEB?  (no vote yet)  Rossami (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Technically, it does not really meet WP:WEB, but then again, at 2,402, Something Awful doesn't meet our Alexa standards either, but it has not only an article for the website, but also another one for its forums.  And it may meet #3 in WP:WEB because of its memes, such as the ORLY owl, Peanut Butter Jelly Time, and others.  -- Rory 0 96 21:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I'd really like sources for the creation of these memes on this particular forum (if such sources are even possible.) Still, I see no harm in the article in its current form, as the statistic on its popularity has been verified. Xoloz 02:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep as long as it doesn't fill up with forumcruft. FCYTravis 06:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Rory096. New Progressive 13:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * What? This is where the memes come from? Keep the article, but burn the site to the ground! Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg|25px|  ]] 17:41, 16 February 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.