Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Gaming Age Forums - Knowledge

Source 📝

294:(despite splitting its traffic between forums.gaming-age.com and a handful of alternate domains). For the number-addicted, it has nearly 2 million posts (this despite automated deletion of stale threads after a certain time), and nearly 8000 registered users (despite requiring administrator approval to register an account). This is emphatically not a vanity advertisement listing; this is a peer of the IGN and Gamespot boards in traffic and influence. - 52:
has comprehensively rewritten the article and persuaded at least one former deleter to be a keeper. In this case, I'm not sure there is a consensus given the new information in the article, and I think that VfU would be likely to undelete+relist this. A renomination may be appropriate for the sake of
402:
revisions. To highlight some reasons why the GAF should have a Wiki article. Many game developers and major game media names visit the site. The forums are very active with around 1000 users online during weekdays and GAF is still growing. 2 million + posts have been achieved in less than a year and
128:
I don't know if it should be deleted, but do please review the edit history and the continual vandalism of this page when thinking about it. I've never been to GAF and, based on how they describe themselves, will never go there, but I'm spending a few minutes every week rolling back nonsense or
286:. I'm gonna take a crack a rewriting this, but this is a significant gaming forum, particularly as a barameter of gaming culture in general. I'm also not sure why the nominator said it ranks low on BigBoards and Alexa; it's 317:
I've edited the page to be a little less vain and in-jokey, including a mention of notable posters (people who are notable as something other than GAF posters, not a "OMG KEWL POSTERS" list). -
254:
Because the site doesn't much matter. The forums aren't an adjunct to Gaming-Age; they are independently administrated, and largely more popular than the GA site. Alexa backs this up:
245:
website doesn't have an article, so why should its forum be considered more important? Also, a side note: Google gives 635,000 hits for "Gaming Age" but only displays 28 of them. --
367: 330: 307: 271: 151: 17: 422: 225: 36: 291: 255: 48:. Discounting Duderon (total of 2 edits), I would normally pretty much rely on an 8d-3k to be a delete. However, 421:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an
407: 390: 372: 363: 349: 335: 326: 312: 303: 276: 267: 249: 227: 210: 198: 174: 156: 147: 133: 118: 105: 91: 59: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a
403:
a half, since NeoGAF's incarnation, and the forums contain a wealth of information for the average user.
246: 138:
Vandalizing this page is one of the favorite hobbies of the posters of a rival forum, unfortunately. -
65: 399: 383: 355: 318: 295: 259: 218: 139: 49: 223: 242: 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
256:
87% of the gaming-age.com domain's hits are to forum.gaming-age.com or forums.gaming-age.com
76: 346: 207: 183: 115: 102: 404: 287: 171: 354:
As far as I can tell, being annoyed at trolls isn't a criterion for deletion. -
54: 387: 130: 72: 167: 84: 88: 71:
Non notable website, vanity piece. Both forum and main site rank low on
415:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
345:. This Opa Ages/Gaming Age blather has gone on long enough. - 39:
nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.
386:
revisions, I think it is a good article, worth keeping. --
80: 241:, non-notable forum on a non-notable website. The 425:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 7: 288:ranked #24 in traffic on BigBoards 87:which are arguably more relevant. 24: 79:respectively, considerably below 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 336:10:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 313:07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 277:07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 250:05:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC) 228:22:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 211:19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 199:17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 175:16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 157:07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC) 134:16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 106:12:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 92:11:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC) 1: 292:rank of about 12,500 on Alexa 170:forum. Doesn't seem special. 44:The result of the debate was 235:It is not important Opa-ages 129:vandalism from this page. -- 408:20:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 391:13:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 373:06:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 350:05:55, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 119:15:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC) 60:00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC) 442: 290:, and has a fairly decent 418:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 85:Gamefaqs message boards 37:Votes for Undeletion 423:undeletion request 398:I also agree with 81:IGN Message Boards 371: 334: 311: 275: 184:Andrew Lenahan - 155: 66:Gaming Age Forums 58: 433: 420: 400:A Man In Black's 384:A Man In Black's 361: 359: 324: 322: 301: 299: 265: 263: 221: 196: 193: 190: 187: 166:Just an average 145: 143: 57: 34: 441: 440: 436: 435: 434: 432: 431: 430: 429: 416: 357: 320: 297: 261: 219: 194: 191: 188: 185: 141: 101:per nominator. 69: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 439: 437: 428: 427: 411: 410: 393: 377: 376: 375: 340: 339: 338: 281: 280: 279: 247:Idont Havaname 236: 230: 213: 201: 177: 161: 160: 159: 123: 122: 121: 114:the re-write. 68: 63: 50:A Man In Black 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 438: 426: 424: 419: 413: 412: 409: 406: 401: 397: 394: 392: 389: 385: 381: 378: 374: 369: 365: 360: 353: 352: 351: 348: 344: 341: 337: 332: 328: 323: 316: 315: 314: 309: 305: 300: 293: 289: 285: 282: 278: 273: 269: 264: 257: 253: 252: 251: 248: 244: 240: 237: 234: 231: 229: 226: 224: 222: 217: 214: 212: 209: 205: 202: 200: 197: 181: 178: 176: 173: 169: 165: 162: 158: 153: 149: 144: 137: 136: 135: 132: 127: 124: 120: 117: 113: 110: 109: 108: 107: 104: 100: 96: 95: 94: 93: 90: 86: 82: 78: 74: 67: 64: 62: 61: 56: 51: 47: 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 417: 414: 395: 379: 342: 283: 238: 232: 215: 203: 179: 163: 125: 111: 98: 97: 70: 46:NO CONSENSUS 45: 43: 31: 28: 284:Strong keep 243:Gaming Age 208:Dottore So 182:NN forum. 73:big-boards 53:clarity. - 356:A Man In 347:Lucky 6.9 319:A Man In 296:A Man In 260:A Man In 168:VBulletin 140:A Man In 368:Contribs 331:Contribs 308:Contribs 272:Contribs 220:Jwissick 152:Contribs 405:Duderon 172:Kushboy 126:Comment 343:Delete 239:Delete 233:Delete 216:Delete 204:Delete 180:Delete 164:Delete 99:Delete 55:Splash 388:Habap 382:With 358:Black 321:Black 298:Black 262:Black 142:Black 131:Habap 77:Alexa 16:< 396:Keep 380:Keep 364:Talk 327:Talk 304:Talk 268:Talk 258:. - 206:nn. 148:Talk 112:Keep 83:and 75:and 192:bli 89:Stx 366:| 329:| 306:| 270:| 195:nd 189:ar 186:St 150:| 116:Al 103:Al 370:) 362:( 333:) 325:( 310:) 302:( 274:) 266:( 154:) 146:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
Votes for Undeletion
A Man In Black
Splash
00:06, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Gaming Age Forums
big-boards
Alexa
IGN Message Boards
Gamefaqs message boards
Stx
11:50, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Al
12:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Al
15:09, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Habap
16:34, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
A Man In Black
Talk
Contribs
07:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
VBulletin
Kushboy
16:43, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Andrew Lenahan - Starblind
17:18, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Dottore So
19:46, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
Jwissick

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.