Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadrunner records message boards


 * 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. Petros471 15:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Roadrunner records message boards
This is a contested PROD, so I'm bringing it to AfD so we can gain some community consensus. This set of message boards does not appear to meet the criteria at WP:WEB. While I don't see a problem with mentioning at Roadrunner Records that the boards exist, the detailed history and character of each of the major posters is not really encyclopedic. Joyous! | Talk 15:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Message boards are not notable in themselves. Neither do they inheirt notability by association. This also looks like a lot of vanity. Ydam 15:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn. --InShaneee 16:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination, or as a second choice redirect to Roadrunner Records. --Metropolitan90 16:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep: Although it might just be a small corner of the internet where few will dare tread you might take a sentence to look at what wikipedia currently is. It's a vast hole of information on just about anything imaginable. A veritable archive of articles, subjects, and topics. Although it may not matter to you, wikipedia is an encyclopedia by the people, for the people. It's one thing to delete an article on one person for being false, unsupported, or incoherent but it's quite another to delete an account of something. If this is allowed it would open up the door to many deletions as one saw fit due to opinion or other such stances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elsapo (talk • contribs)
 * Keep I think the user above me was spot on. It appears a number of people are dismissing this article based on its superficial nature, without actually taking a look at the content. I am a regular poster at the RR message board, and with confidence I can say that many others will agree that it is one of the most unique (and controversial) forums on the internet. But that is irrelevant.

The real issue here is the sense of community. This isn't an advertisement promoting an individual, organisation or business in vain. The wiki has only existed for a couple of days, and it that time there have been large amounts of edits, contributions and expansions by a wide range of users. A good number of people are getting a significant amount of entertainment from this article, and if you actually bothered to browse it yourself, you'll more than likely find that it makes for a pretty interesting read. A lot of work has gone into producing it, and will do into the future. There is no need to delete this page just because you feel as though it isn't overly "encylopaedic". The beauty of Wikipedia is that it is very progressive, and thanks to the hard efforts of the people it is moving away from traditional textbook monotony towards the spectrum of social issues. Not only do I think this should be kept, I think Wikipedia needs more articles like this in general. Keep it. Harkonnen665 04:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * comment There are several issues here, but I don't think a "sense of community" is among them. The posters at RRMB have a community: the message board in question. There is no reason to make Wikipedia an extension of that board. I have read the entire article, and the contents violate several guidelines that have been in place at Wikipedia for a long time: website standards, biographical article standards, guidelines that discourage vanity articles and concepts of verifiability come to mind immediately.  Joyous! | Talk 04:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep There are wiki's for several other message boards (eg, Slashdot and some others that I cant remember the name of right now), so what makes the RR article any less worthy than those? Surely if you think the 'community' thing should stay at the message board, then the articles for Slashdot etc should be deleted as well? It sounds to me like it's one rule for us, another for them.

And in the first post here it was mentioned that each user has a detailed history, if you read the article this is clearly not the case. The majority of the members on RR are featured in the memberlist in the article, while only a handful have had a paragraph or two devoted to them. If each member decided to write their own mini-bio, then yes I would agree that this is overstepping the mark, but they haven't, and won't, so it's hardly clogging up the article. If anything, it adds to it.

Having said that, I would be in favour of editing the article to conform to the standards deemed acceptable, but a complete and total deletion of it is, in my opinion, unnecessary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Onikage93 (talk • contribs).


 * Keep: I don't see why such a fuss is being created over a relatively small article on a site booming with free data-space. As for the article not being encyclopaedic, I completely disagree.  It may be a trivial article to some of you but that doesn't dispute the fact that the information provided is true on a relevant material which one may want to read about (and already many have).  Some parts may include a bias, but every wikipedia page created shows bias (and history in general) as they are written by people.


 * You may feel that it is unimportant and it may be to you but as previously mentioned there are plenty of users who enjoy this article. It is not merely an extension of the board as discussions are not occurring on the page.  And before you dismiss it as a tirade of vanity, I'd like to point out that at least two of you against keeping this page have wikipedia pages based entirely on yourselves.


 * Throughout history we have faced censorship from administrational authorities who furthermore decide what is relevant and what isn't. As everything is filtered, our scope of knowledge becomes tubular and we remained confined to anything that doesn't deviate from a pre-decided norm.  It's silly that I even should be writing something like this for the sake of a wiki article on a message board.  My point is, please try to have an open mind regarding articles such as these as otherwise the material your website allows will remained confined to the opinions of a few in a boring state of static.  Cheers. AvulComa 12:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * User pages are not articles. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 12:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep In relation to other message boards, the RR Message board, has a rich sense of culture, history, and ethos.  It is not 'just another message board'.  There could be some changes, for instance the 'RR Board Party' section appears too trival.  The board to my knowledge has had led to some significant events, such as the incident with renowned metal band 'Nile'. - VikingBerserk


 * Keep The Verifiability and notability standards.  This can easily be overcome, threads supporting eventualities provide direct evidence to claims.  It merely needs a little work, it just needs to be done. The accessibility of primary sources suggests this article should not be deleted, it just needs a little effort.  It is a direct encyclopedic, primary source historical analysis. - VikingBerserk
 * Comment. User:VikingBerserk already voted; see above. --Metropolitan90 04:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, message boards are almost never notable. Recury 14:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Re: comment (Joyous!) You can go ahead and quote the "constitution", meticulously pointing out all detailed "breeches of terms" and whatnot, and to this, quite frankly, I agree. Due to the haste with which large amounts of information were thrown on the drawing board initially, the execution of formatting and literary perspective was haphazard at times, but measures are being taken to rectify this. The only thing I firmly disagree with on your little list is the "vanity" notion (but more on this later). Today I spent a good half-hour going over the entire article with a fine-toothed comb; correcting inaccuracies, paraphrasing to convert the colloquialisms into more formal tones, and changing a few things around to ensure a strict neutral point-of-view. I believe it's pretty much within all the Wikipedia guidelines now, although once again this really is digressing from the matter at hand (as there are a lot of Wikis around that are far worse in this respect).

I'd like to expand on a point I touched on earlier (as did a few others), concerning the notability and level of prominence of the RR board. To make an abrupt assumption that it's "just another message board" is asinine. The board is very notorious and unique. As mentioned by VikingBeserk, members from a few well-known metal bands have visited the board and got themselves involved in the flame-wars and general controversy (Nile and 36 Crazyfists being a couple of examples), making for some memorable incidents. The other big issue is that the RR Board has absolutely no censorship, no rules or regulations, and no administration whatsoever. It's one of the only affiliated/endorsed forums on the internet to be like this (others may have limited control of content, but not zero). As a result, it's extremely controversial. The internet in general is pretty authoritarian, but RR has contained any and every racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted post you could imagine. This makes it noteworthy. Some arrive on the board and find it incredibly offensive, but the view held by most of the regulars is that the concept of absolute freedom of expression is preferable. It is a hallmark of libertarianism, a protest to the "powers that be", and a very prominant example of internet anarchy. A few people have suggested that this particular article contains too much trivial information, and that's a fair argument. But, in providing a detailed description of this board as a point of reference on the wider issue, people can read into its underlying connotations and that's great for public opinion (and at the same time, it isn't biased and is not attempting to force any particular viewpoints down their throats). There are also a lot of philosophical undertones that can be referenced from examples on the Roadrunner board. However, this article is still very much unfinished, and a lot of the authors a still throwing ideas around on what information to include, where to put it and how to word it, so as to make it most appropriate for the context of Wikipedia.

I must once again state that there is no vanity involved here. I am not promoting myself, nor are any of the other writers. Neither are we promoting ourselves as a group in general. No one has any business or commercial interents here. The point of this article is, a) to provide information on the board's history and major events, and b) to reflect on the social themes as a whole, and tie it all in to the themes of the bigger picture, so casual readers can get more out of it than just a giggle at the amusing anecdotes. Harkonnen665 15:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (I didn't actually "vote" above) The fact remains, though, that it does not meet any of the criteria of WP:WEB. -Goldom ‽‽‽ ⁂ 14:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks KeRosiNe 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I beleive the board is important to a number of people, even people not members of the board will often read it in order to gain an unbiased or different opinion on one matter or the other, I beleive it is more than a message board and is more than deserving of 1 page on this sites' immense space. At the end of the day it's not doing any harm and the day you run out of space feel free to put this article up for deletion again as I think that should really be your only reason for wanting to delete something that is bringing much entertainment to many.

Encyclopedia From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Brockhaus Konversations-Lexikon, 1902An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also (rarely) encyclopædia,[1] is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge
 * Keep It must also be noted, that the article has been steadily adapting to the conditions of Wikipedia criteria, if one analyzes the history of the article the observation would be made that it's become significantly less impartial. The effort is transpiring and I'm confident given a  somewhat lengthier lifeline, the page will meet Wikipedia standards. On account of impartiality, and on notability and veritability as previously discussed - VikingBerserk
 * Comment. The above vote was cast by User:202.72.148.102. If this was User:VikingBerserk posting without being logged in, then he already voted twice above. --Metropolitan90 04:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Even if not a member of the board, this article can be of interest for some researches on different investigations.

That is taken from this page. Since the article we're talking about is about a board's history, since it's history we're talking about (maybe internet history, but history still), it still counts as knowledge. And the message board is one of the most important message boards in the internet. Internet is a very important thing these days, so it's history is very important. And the best thing about wikipedia is that you can find anything, so, it's important to keep all info, and since the article has been modified to fit the criteria, there is really no good reason to delete it12:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)Backstreetboysfan


 * Keep I am very impressed with the effort that has been put into the page, there is now an endnote system, defying all doubts regarding notability, verifiability, it even puts the notion of 'vanity' into context. This progressive attitude, building on even the changes made prior, indicates that the effort is being made to adapt to the desired criteria of the website.  The attitude reflects that it will done, and I can argue with tremendous certainty that the page should be kept. - VikingBerserk
 * Comment. The above vote was cast by User:202.72.148.102, who already voted above. If this was User:VikingBerserk posting without being logged in, then he already voted three times above, twice while logged in and once previously under this IP address. --Metropolitan90 04:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Roadrunner Records. In doing so, make it a major section, preserve all the information. If the Roadrunner Records article grows too long, we can always spin this off again. Jumbo Snails 20:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Metropolitan90, it is clearly indicated at the top of the article that this is not a vote, I am merely stating further points in regards to why the article should be kept. But, if it is a bother, I'll cease doing so.  Buddy. - VikingBerserk
 * Comment. Fair enough, it's true that this is not a vote. If you (VikingBerserk) have any further things to state in favor of the article, you should still post them but you should probably start them with the word "Comment" instead. However, it seems to me that this article is mostly a record of personal attacks made by pseudonymous people against other pseudonymous people. There is nothing in the article about the involvement of the bands Nile or 36 Crazyfists with the message board. Also, given the wide variety of content on the Internet, I am doubtful that this message board is noteworthy merely because it has included "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted" content. I am actually surprised that more editors have not joined in to express opinions in favor of deletion. --Metropolitan90 13:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Re: Metropolitan90 The Nile incident is a complex one to explain, so it would require its own paragraph in order to give a suitably comprehensive account. Hence, why I stated "this article is still very much unfinished". As for the one involving 36 Crazyfists - it is already mentioned in the article, and had been three and a half hours before you posted your comment.


 * "Also, given the wide variety of content on the Internet, I am doubtful that this message board is noteworthy merely because it has included "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, hateful, slanderous, threatening and foul-tasted" content" - This is a blatant assumption. I based my statement on knowledge gained from four years on the Roadrunner board, and in turn, drawing on comparisons with many other message boards. The only other website which comes close to the level of liberalism in regard to offensive/controversial material would have to be anus.com/"free speech project" (see its website and mention at RR). And guess what? Anus.com has its own Wikipedia article. As Onikage93 put, "it's one rule for us, another for them". Harkonnen665 04:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. And if by some miracle or stupendous failure of our collective judgement this one remains on Wikipedia, or gets merged to Roadrunner Records, at least clean it the hell up. The assertion that H8terman's exclamations about where someone accepts cocks or explanations of what yet another bunch of people on the internet mean when they type "teh ghey" are somehow encyclopedic material is utterly ridiculous. -- Captain Disdain 05:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * comment"explanations of what yet another bunch of people on the internet mean when they type "teh ghey" are somehow encyclopedic material is utterly ridiculous." - Incorrect, that is ignorant, friend. While the several phrases may have gutteral connotations, there is no reason why it is not encyclopedic material - VikingBerserk.


 * Keep This page has yet to show its full potential. It is being edited frequently to adjust itself to your complaints. it is unfinished and deserves more time to be edited to fit the standard required. it is history and that history deserves to be recorded down on wikipedia. This board will continue to make new history which will be added in time. The page is a healthy and thriving page which is here to stay. 222.153.139.172 Theycallmejesus
 * Captain Disdain, this may be of interest to you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leet Harkonnen665 09:12, 23 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.