Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Phora (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. -- Cirt (talk) 04:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Phora
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails WP:WEB. Non-notable forum. Reconsider !  11:55, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Keep Is there an objective criteria for determining forum notability? At the Talk page for the Internet forums article, it was stated that a forum only need 1,000 members to be potentially notable (The Phora has over 2,400). We also have over 870,000 posts, which is a substantial number (not to mention a greater posts-per-member ratio that any other forum deemed notable at Wikipedia). And while we only have one notable citation from a reliable source, I'm not at all sure any subject necessarily needs more than one in order to have some claim to notability. The Phora is very well-known and quite high-profile among both far-right and far-left communities of online posters (due to the "free speech" orientation of the board, it is one of the very few places where one can witness free, uncensored debates between Communists, Nazis & fascists, anarchists, libertarians, liberals, conservatives, monarchists, Islamists, etc). "ThePhora" brings up 50,800 hits at Google KevinOKeeffe (talk) 12:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Response:
 * 1. Yes, there are objective criteria for determining forum notability; see these guidelines:
 * Notability (web)
 * Notability
 * Identifying reliable sources
 * This article fails to meet these criteria in my opinion.
 * 2. The Talk page for our Internet forum article is just an article talk page with various opinions; it is not a community-approved guideline; to understand this distinction, see:
 * Policies and guidelines
 * Help:Using talk pages
 * 3. ThePhora has only 231 unique Google general web search hits, a more meaningful Google measure and the one cited as more useful at deletion discussions than total hits (50,800 in this case).
 * 4. Having said that, general Google web search results are of limited use in deletion discussions; see this essay
 * Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, especially the Google tests section
 * For still more equivocal, exhaustive (i.e., exhausting) but interesting reading, see:
 * Google searches and numbers
 * Search engine test
 * 5. Google News Archive searches, on the other hand, are very relevant to deletion discussions since they frequently give links to reliable sources; tellingly, a Google News Archive search turns up zero hits.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Weak delete On the one hand the article was evidently nominated for deletion the same day as it was created. This seems a bit unfair. I also like the ADL cite. On the other hand, WP:WEB requires multiple reliable sources. This requirement needs to be addressed. I tried searching Google News (including the archive) and Google Books, but I didn't find anything. If the editors can find just one more reliable source, I'll be happy to change my vote. TheLastNinja (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually WP:WEB requires multiple non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. The Phora is only briefly mentioned in the ADL article, when describing a host of online responses to Virginia Tech massacre.- Reconsider !  06:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. WP:WEB defines "trivial" in a way that doesn't fit with the coverage in the ADL article. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:50, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Delete per the points I made above. Also, while I respect the Anti-Defamation League, I am undecided as to whether the page on their web site that's cited in our article counts as a reliable source (per our narrow definition for notability purposes) or should be considered an opinion piece/press release. I think that ADL page falls into a gray area and we need other, independent news coverage to meet our notability requirements. I'm open to revisiting my delete comment if someone finds good news coverage. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: An earlier version of this article has been deleted before; see Articles for deletion/The Phora.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:54, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment It should be noted that the previously deleted article from 2005 was for an earlier incarnation of the site (a different URL, with different ownership), and that article (which I did not write, unlike this one), was very amateurish, and contained no citations that were even arguably from reliable sources.  I would have supported the deletion of THAT article. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions.  — A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  — A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  — A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG … just another NN Web forum. Happy Editing! &mdash;  18:26, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - Trojan horse POV push/advertising. Cites no sources indicating this 2400 member message board has any significance whatsoever. Carrite (talk) 15:54, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Self-promotional garbage that fails notability guidelines. Out of 3 sources, 2 are to the website itself, and 1 to the ADL just name-drops it when quoting users.  This is a joke. Tarc (talk) 02:31, 27 August 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.