Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OffTopic.com (3rd 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. east.718 at 00:41, 11/4/2007

[edit] OffTopic.com

OffTopic.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article that doesn't meet WP:WEB. Being the biggest forum means nothing if nobody has covered it. Allegedly the soruce of many memes, though FisherQueen just prodded the article and said that he/she couldn't find sources. It's been well over 20 months since the AFD and still no sources have turned up. The last AFD compared it to Something Awful; well, the Something Awful Forums are now merged into the main article, and the main article has plenty of third-party sourcing. This article, however, does not. Perhaps the memes themselves are notable, but that does not make the forum of origin notable. hbdragon88 04:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

• Weak delete. I withdrew the prod when I saw it had already been through AfD, but I sincerely don't see how this web site meets WP:WEB. The only sources are verification of its traffic rankings... they're very nice, but I couldn't find anyone actually writing about this source, and how can we independently verify the information in the article if no one is writing about it? I am open to the possibility that reliable sources exist that I didn't find, but they don't seem to have been presented in the earlier AfD, which seems to rely on Alexa ranking for its keep decision. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Consensus in the previous AFD was that it was notable enough to deserve an article. There is nothing to suggest that its notability has declined since then. The solution to a poorly-sourced article on a notable subject is not to delete the article, but to improve it. Cynical 17:29, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Request. I would really like to improve its sourcing; I searched and couldn't find reliable sources that would help me improve it. Could you link to the sources that you would use to improve the article? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Don't see any reason to delete that has come up since the last AfD Robhakari 21:37, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, no sources outside of traffic rankings. Gakusha 22:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
• Keep PSG came from OT. 'nuff said themolsen
  • Striking comment. User:themolsen doesn't exist; this was added by a vandal-only IP. Very likely a bad-faith !vote based on solely disruptive editing as well as user's attempt to disguise as a nonexistent registered user. — xDanielx ^T/_C 00:46, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
  • A more definitive method is Special:Listusers, whcih again doesn't show any "Themolsen" hbdragon88 05:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 10:31, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete source it or lose it. Note: Suggest closing admin disregard any votes/comments that are nothing but restatements of "Well, we kept it last time..." without any additional reasoning or sourcing to back it up. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:15, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. No sources? No article. Fails WP:N. (Alexa and BigBoard are not notability.) --Dhartung | Talk 13:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and FisherQueen. Doctorfluffy 18:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. So this article has been around for more than 2 years, and no one could find sources showing notability, even after it was nominated for deletion last time? This suggests that no sources can be found, so it's non notable. Crazysuit 18:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete If there are no independent reliable sources then there is nothing verifiable that we can put into an article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:43, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per above Chris! _ct 01:01, 30 October 2007 (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.