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 keep. --Coredesat 04:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This website is well-known as the premiere site for hobby boardgames, which is why the {boardgamegeek} template was created to link to BoardGameGeek's entries for games and designers. Also, there are some good keep arguments made on the article's Talk page. --Groggy Dice T|C 06:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ((boardgamegeek)) is the template Groggy Dice is referring to. It seems to be used on some 400 pages. --Brad Beattie(talk) 06:24, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless Notability can be shown -- Bec-Thorn-Berry 06:18, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Probably the largest website on board games, and a key resource for Wikipedians, thus the template. The assertion of notability is likely missing because it seemed too obvious to mention. :-) Stan 06:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very Strong Keep. The single most important hobby game user-review and discussion site on the internet. I personally view it several times a weak and have dozens of references from wikipedia articles to the site. This is a no-brainer. MiracleMat 07:00, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above points - cleanup needed, but the site is definitely of merit and worth an article (I've had game shop staff and customers refer me to it for advice and reviews) --Ckatzchatspy 10:10, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless notability can be shown, and it hasn;t happened yet. Existence of template being used to spam the site across tons of articles in no way in itself demonstrates notability, just that someone went through and places links everywhere. I think the template needs to be deleted more than the article itself, but the article, if it does stay, should not have all the thoroughly nonencyclopedic trivial and self-promotional details that were there. DreamGuy 10:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added several references, which I believe should help establish notability. BoardGameGeek is notable in the boardgaming community, regardless of the ability of editors here to demonstrate that. The presence of cruft is not in itself an argument against notability, but it does demonstrate that the article could use some work. That's a separate issue, I would think. Jwolfe 11:16, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that references have been added, although it needs more of course. The article needs cleanup but it passes notability, and now passes WP:V. -Markeer 13:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable website, pretty much the premier one for boardgames fans and players. Does need improvement, though. Bastun 14:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Highly notable with many mentions in online interviews and articles and 100,000+ members worldwide, BGG is the primary internet website and database for board and card games. It is virtually impossible to do a google search for a board game and not hit this website. BGG is part of WikiProject Board and table games and it is certainly no less notable and encyclopedic than many other Wikipedia entries for online databases, e.g. Grand_Comic_Book_Database. I don't understand the opposition here-- some kind of personal grievance against the site? My list of sources demonstrating notability is here. --Jcbutler 17:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lately there's been an unfortunate trend toward AfD-first-ask-questions-later on anything that's a Website. Tarinth 22:56, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep because the AfD was created on the basis of an absence of an assertion of notability, which is clearly specious. An inane AfD... If you don't feel the article adequately asserts notability, at least take a moment to see if there's anything to indicate notability independant of Wikipedia. AfD's waste a lot of time. Tarinth 22:53, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep notable website --BenWhitey 03:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep this looks like a case of a well meaning guideline being used to claim a clearly noteworthy website isn't noteworthy. Since we seem to be looking for print references, someone should cite the article in the November 2005 issue of KnuckleBones magazine about it [1]. I'll try to keep an eye out for others. Rdore 03:57, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep website meets WP:WEB and is not that different from the one on h2g2. Keeper of Maps 23:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the largest site dedicated to a hobby of substatial noteworthiness, there is nothing unacceptable about it garnering a wiki page. IrwinRShyster
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.