Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alternatehistory.com
- 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. Xoloz 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Non notable forum site fails WP:WEB (alexa of 662,333, if you're interested). Article was de'proded. alphaChimp laudare 04:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Why don't we have a CSD for non-notable websites? --Mr. Lefty Talk to me! 05:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Exceptionally weak keep - hosting a large discussion forum (apparently the largest on the net about the topic, although I'm not volunteering to check that claim) seems relatively notable. BigHaz 05:57, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The site may be notable, but this entry is too slight. (even slighter, since I felt obligated to delete the "criticism" which was actually an editor's gripe supported only by links to the message board itself) Bustter 10:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If that's all it is, I could have a go at adding some more content later this week. I'd do it earlier, but I've got a busy week. BigHaz 11:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep per BigHaz. 1ne 11:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alexa rank too low for me to believe this is a truly major forum for which we must have an article. Also unreferenced, WP:V, WP:WEB, the usual. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Alexa rank is way too low, and I don't think you could build a significantly large article on this website anyway. As stated above, not a suitable choice according to WP:WEB. --Nishkid64 23:34, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Largest site on the internet for alternate history, but needs improvement. Those of you wishing to delete it on the grounds of non-notability or because you think you can't write alot about it need to take a look at the Cillit Bang article. Jombo 02:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete SHWI is verifiable (really !), this isn't and fails WP:WEB. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely it's at least verifiable BigHaz 22:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per Starblind. However, it seems a useful external link for Alternative history, which I've added. - David Oberst 20:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.