Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VeggieBoards


 * 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   no consensus defaulting to Keep. Some arguments for keeping are pretty weak but even then there is no consensus here on whether the article is notable or not. Davewild (talk) 17:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

VeggieBoards

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

A message board. Searching for RS at a glance appears to turn up nothing, unfortunately. rootology ( C )( T ) 06:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - I know VeggieBoards was reviewed in the cookbook Vegan with a Vengance. Would that be considered a reliable source? I think I will try and include it in the article in any case. Also, VeggieBoards has previously been nominated by VegNews as "best website" in their annual Veggie Awards. This year they have nominated it again, but now in the category "Best Veg Forum". The results are to appear in the next edition of the magazine (November). The winners will receive a feature in the magazine and press coverage. As VeggieBoards is probably the largest such forum, they are likely to win. Although I agree that the amount of reliable sources is rather thin, I think it makes sense to not delete, or at least wait and see if they win a Veggie Award. TheLastNinja (talk) 12:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We have a complete lack of wide independent sourcing. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that is true. There are several sources in the article that are independent of the subject, and some are even critical of it. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete - no real independent sources. Also 30,000 registered is not really all that much for a message board --T-rex 15:18, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * As I said, a decent source exists, and more is likely to be printed by November. Also, 30,000 registered members (actually 35,000 at the moment) might not be a lot compared to the largest Internet forums, but it is a lot (in fact, the highest number) within its category. Or do only the largest of the largest forums qualify for encyclopedic notability? TheLastNinja (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You said it best, that "only the largest of the largest forums qualify for encyclopedic notability", quite honestly a current forum is going to need around 100,000 to be able to claim notability. Furthermore any future sources that may turn up in November certainly do not count. --T-rex 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree about notability. There's no Wikipedia policy that says a "forum is going to need around 100,000 to be able to claim notability". Also, there is a bunch of articles on forums with far less members than that. Besides, some forums delete unused accounts, while others don't, so comparing size and activity of web forums is not as straightforward as one might think.
 * I have to agree that a future source doesn't count. Just saying that maybe you'd want to give it the benefit of the doubt, hold your horses, then delete it if nothing turns up. TheLastNinja (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep as 30,000 registered means 30,000 interested. WikiScrubber (talk) 09:33, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * We don't know if that's 30,000 unique people, and even so that's not a qualifier under WP:N. 30k people may see any website, that doesn't make it notable. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * According to the rules of that website, a member will be banned for having multiple accounts. And those 35k people are not just people who saw the website, but people who saw the website and then took the trouble of signing up. But yes, I agree that number of members alone is not very relevant w.r.t. notability. However, I would argue that being the largest that targets a certain segment of the population could be an indicator of notability. TheLastNinja (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: Since a concern has also been raise w.r.t. notability, I've been reading the fine print on WP:WEB. Footnote 6 says: [...] Being nominated for an award in multiple years is also considered an indicator of notability. I understand that this is only an indicator, but still ... TheLastNinja (talk) 13:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - agree with TheLastNinja.--Sugarcubez (talk) 14:29, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:23, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  21:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I have made some attempts to address the concerns raised above, so the article is hopefully in a better shape now than it was at the time it was suggested for deletion. (However, should the decision still be deletion, I would like to ask that the article is moved to my user space for userfication.) TheLastNinja (talk) 12:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There are still no multiple independent sources. rootology ( C )( T ) 13:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, to which policy are you referring? I believe the article has multiple independent sources. TheLastNinja (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, but can someone please tell us who 'Michael' is? Bob Amnertiopsis ∴ChatMe! 17:14, 6 September 2008 (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.