Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The RollingStone.com 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. - Mailer Diablo 15:22, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

The RollingStone.com Message Boards
nn message board. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:43, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Repeated from discussion: How does this go up for deletion consideration yet no one has a problem with the articles for 4chan, GameFAQ and YTMND? What's the difference? Considering I only heard about all 3 of those a week ago after 8 years on the internet, I'd like to know what's so "notable" about them. And please spend more than 15 minutes thinking about it, I'd appreciate that. Enough4 04:02, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The discussion is about this message board. If you don't think the others should be here, then nominate them and let the consensus of the editors be heard.  In the meantime, discuss why a defunct message board should have an article in an international encyclopedia?  User:Zoe|(talk) 04:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The fact that the others have yet to be deleted suggests a precedent that message boards are, apparently, good enough for articles in this international encyclopedia. So it's more than apt for me to be bringing them up in this discussion. And I have no idea what the boards being "defunct" has anything to do with it. As if articles on people and events of the past aren't included. If it happened, it happened. There's plenty of information to be included in this article, that's why I set up the article as a temporary template. I expect (hope) that something close to 20 people will be working on this article by this time next week. Point is, if those articles made it through, then there's no reason this one shouldn't unless you are of the mind that the message boards of this article aren't important, and that's an opinion and nothing more. I consider the hundreds and hundreds of dedicated posters that made up this community, not to mention the almost 10 year history the boards have, to match any requirement of message board notability. It won't be any more or less than any other such article. Enough4 04:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete. Presumably deleted because Rolling Stone thought it was not worthy of retention. At best worthy of a couple of lines in that article but article fails to establish notability. Capitalistroadster 04:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The magazine's decision to delete the community pages after 10 years reflects a business decision and does not reflect on the notability of this article any more than 4chan's "4 deaths" reflects it's notability. Enough4 04:31, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I should point out that this article is less than 1% complete as is envisioned. I feel that flagging it for deletion is premature and unfair. Enough4 04:33, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, unless notability of the board is established. --Vsion 05:04, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, defunct message board. Dottore So 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, we already have an article on the magazine. Messageboards and forums can easily be mentioned in a few lines in the article on the site or publication they're attached to. This article is riddled with POV and unverifiable statements. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The RollingStone.com Message Boards (???-05/2005) was a vibrant internet community that congregated on the community pages of the Rolling Stone magazine website, with an estimated constituency of 500 frequent posters. The community was filled with diverse, knowledgable and personable posters, almost all of whom shared an ironic dislike for the website's parent magazine.

What comes after that is factual and can be included in the article on the magazine. - Mgm|(talk) 10:27, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete and Redirect to Rolling Stone, maybe including a line about the message board in that article if you want. It doesn't seem to be notable to me. -Colin Kimbrell 20:14, 26 October 2005 (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.