Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OnRPG Forum


 * 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 from legitimate users. SushiGeek 01:36, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

OnRPG Forum
Keep - This is one of the most popular source of free mmorpgs ever. It was even mentioned in an issue of PC Gamer. Why would you even conidier deleting it? The staff are almost active, the star/honourary members are much respected. This fourm is worthy of a page on Wikipedia. Witchunter.

Keep - People are not trying to delete this for any bad reason, most of them are from Onrpg, they just want a more informative wiki page. I think the page was fine but the staff here at wiki decided to be as immature about the situation as the members at the place and this is very dissapointing. I thought the origonal information was fine and could have made better but that's an easy edit. Now it makes the site look bad and it truely isn't, it decides to attack Moderators that are actually quite responsive to forum problems but we feel our members have freedom to a point and we should not lock them up in to specific topics or yelling at them when they do one simple thing.

Keep - A large community resides in OnRPG, numbers of visitors that range from 400 to 1500 visit OnRPG everyday. Being the one of the best free mmorpg directory on internet, no doubt it's going to be 'notable' in the near future. As a web database for all information, why don't, you Wikipedia people, keep this article and propell OnRPG to a even more greater fame? I also like to emphasize this, in my opinion, the forum is 'notable' but the site itself is even more 'notable'. It has also several sites under its name specialising in CG, Anime and more. Contents that concerned the development of free MMORPGs and major incoming MMORPGs are added into OnRPG frequently, no doubt it's a paradise for gamers.

Delete - I don't see any real assertion of notability. Wickethewok 17:08, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep- OnRPG is real helpfull to a lot of people, I don't think it needs to be deleated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.224.183.203 (talk • contribs)

Keep- OnRPG has a great community and is very helpful, there is no reason to delete this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.144.152 (talk • contribs)

Keep- Onrpg is a great site, and there's a ton of information; it's a must for anyone who considers themselves gamers! Plenty of helpful people there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.109.79.170 (talk • contribs)

Keep- OnRPG is a great MMOG community, as well as my favorite. Within it lies great/fun members, staff members who know waht they're doing, and an excellent variety of forums. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.33.162 (talk • contribs)

Keep- I have been a member of OnRPG for more than 2 years and i find OnRPG one of the best MMORPG websites and Forums, therefore i think it deserves a article on Wikipedia. Raiyne 20:13, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: fails WP:WEB. --Hetar 19:22, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I see the forum claims over 130K registered users and 600K posts, but it also claims to have 187 users online ... and only eleven of them are registered.  It's a pretty startling dichotomy, which I hope the spammer newbies coming on to support it will care to set aside their rote claims of greatness to address.  Delete until they do.  RGTraynor 19:34, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Does not meet WP:WEB. &mdash;LrdChaos 19:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Vanity article, non notable. Jonas Silk 19:44, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment While the forum itself might not be notable the whole site in general might be. It's in the top 20,000 according to Alexa.  If the article could be expanded to talk about the entire website as well as its notability and not just the forum then it might be worth keeping.  --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 19:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment OnRPG isn't just forums, it just has forums, the point of it is to share the RPG games of the world to the people,let them know which ones are available, and reveiws them.It doesn't just revolve around Web Content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.178.144.152 (talk • contribs)
 * Keep. Site seems "notable" enough. YellowPigNowNow 22:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Site is unobtable and does not adhere to Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.4.252.157 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete as non-notable webcruft vanity and ignore the IP Squad in the final vote count. JDoorj a m    Talk 22:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep.:OnRPG is a directory of MMOG's. The forums are also dedicated in finding and providing support for them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.87.131.225 (talk • contribs).
 * Keep. This sight is probably the biggest most famous page for talk and info about MMO's. The forums are just one of the great things here. Keep OnRPG here in Wikipedia to spread the fun of online gaming.
 * Keep. Because it is notable --DragonWR12LB 04:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. OnRPG is one of the best MMORPG websites that lists them and discusses them, I think its important to keep it on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.138.117.230 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete nn and vanity. The sockpuppets aren't helping its case either. --Arnzy (Talk) 07:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL wtf is a sock puppet? Anyway, I say keep. OnRPG's huge community and its ever-expanding directory is notable in and of itself. That, and all the other stuff the site provides, like unopinionated reviews, game development help, etc., make this a Strong Keep. (PowerGamer6 15:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC))
 * Comment A sock puppet usually means a user who creates multiple login names in order to pretend to be multiple people. It's not really relevant here. What we have in this discussion is a large number of people who are newcomers to Wikipedia expressing their opinions, presumably led here by a posting in the OnRPG forum. Not the same thing. Fan1967 16:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Sockpuppetry is subverting the process.  Non-notable.  Do not reward the vain.  NTK 20:54, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Granted the forums may not be worth noting, the site on the whole should be. Cloud13 23:44, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Cloud13 is an OnRPG moderator whose only WP edit is this page. NTK 16:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

keep What the hell,Why do you guys want one of the best game fourms to be removed?!Are you suffering from ADD?or is you just slow?If you posted Delete,your a Brain Dead Kerr. The Site should be on Wiki,I read some idoit wants it to be Deleted Because of its not certified of Being in the wiki?what are u some kinda dumbass? do you literally read Wiki?Get a life you poor losers and get with thefacts u dipsticks,onrpg is staying on here.(Corasked-from Onrpg) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.245.227.31 (talk • contribs).
 * Delete as non-notable forum, see WP:WEB. Flood of socks. Stifle (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm sure theres a big thread on this site about keeping this article here. I hope all votes for keep made by users with no previous edits are disregarded.  Wickethewok 23:36, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete And yes, they do have a forum thread about this. -156.34.75.213 03:17, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Decently notable website (not particularly the forums.. but a move and slight rewrite fixes that). If it turns out it hasn't been mentioned in gaming mags delete. Kotepho 13:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The OnRPG website currently doesn't have a page, and it sounds like the site may be notable enough, though not the site's forums on their own. Would moving anything that could be salvaged from the OnRPG Forum page we're considering for deletion here to a new OnRPG page, preferably with some article cleanup and love, be a possibility? Kiti 03:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment; well, what a charmer. BTW, according to their own figures, OnRPG is the 247th most popular roleplaying gaming forum on the Web.  That is not precisely the argument I would myself prefer to use to defend my site's notability.  RGTraynor 21:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per RG. --Khoikhoi 22:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment It appears that the staff here is getting frustrated with the members of our forum and we do apologize for the way our members are acting. Seriously, guys, what the hell. It makes OnRPG look bad. Again, on behalf of most of OnRPG, I apologize for the way our members have been acting. They should better. (PowerGamer6 23:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Keep - OnRPG has been mentioned in magizenes such as PC Gamer, and has a great community. But it's sole purpose is to provide information on all the MMOs out there, and it succedes,being one of the most informative on the web. The forums are just in place for general coversation and (mainly) for people with questions on a praticular game.The moderators are frequently active and people will generally get a reply within a few minutes.
 * The entry itself is named 'OnRPG forums',which is wrong and should just be called OnRPG or OnRPG-online MMO directory. The entry just needs some work really, and it does not need to be deleted.Give it time.
 * Please ignore the idiots who posted here with dumb responces and flames. This has been posted in our forums to make people aware of it and they are just trying to defend our website. They do not represent us as a whole. (ReapЭr 23:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC))
 * This user's only edit is to OnRPG Forum. NTK 16:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think that matters, cause all he's done is asked people to ignore the idiots who have dumb responses and flame. (PowerGamer6 18:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC))


 * Delete. The article at presents does not meet WP:WEB because: The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a "Reference" or "External link" section. The article does not do this therefore it should be deleted unless amended. -- cmh 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete M o e   ε  18:06, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. FYI, I've looked over that thread on their forum, and the locals are by and large furious about the flamers and the sockpuppets.  My vote doesn't change, but I thought people should know.  RGTraynor 18:50, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Sandstein 18:57, 12 April 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.