Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theforce.net(Second 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 of the debate was Keep. Chaser T 09:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• delete repository of fancruft— Milkandwookiees ^(T | C) 16:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think this probably notable enough to keep, although I don't have time to check its visitor numbers. If someone can check that and provide stats to the contrary, I'd be willing to change my vote. If kept, though, all of the external links need to be removed except for the one to the main page. Kafziel 16:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep- current Alexa rank of 8,813, and aside from StarWars.com, the main Star Wars site on the web. Milkandwookiees has suddenly nominated an awful lot of articles for deletion with very flimsy reasoning. Possible WP:POINT? TheRealFennShysa 16:35, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Per above. The Wookieepedian 16:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep I'm not a big Star Wars fan and even I've heard of this site, it's large, popular and notable. And yes, Milkandwookiees seems to be rather indiscriminately putting up Star Wars/Star Trek items regardless of value today -Markeer 16:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, Milkandwookiees I think you should lay off the fancruft AFDs for a few days (and this is coming from someone who has enthusiatically voted delete in many of them). Let this lot go through the process and see what happens before submitting more. - Motor (talk) 16:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. Strewth, there's another 9 year old lose on AfD. -- GWO
• Keep - Very notable site. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Very notable website. Trimming excessive fancruft on Wikipedia and attempting to massacre every single fancruft article on Wikipedia are two entirely different concepts, and although some of what MW is AfDing I'd vote for, I do think he's being a tad bit indiscriminate — no offense there, guy. — WCityMike (talk • contribs) 19:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Mets WEB. --maru (talk) contribs 20:31, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:WEB. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A very notable collection of Star Wars fancruft. Come on. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The nom is weak with this one. Strongly meets WP:WEB. Voice of Treason 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Stong/Speedy Keep clearly meets WP:WEB. Eluchil404 02:31, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Eluchi404. -LtNOWIS 02:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - per everyone else. DillPickle 21:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This isn't just a fansite for Star Wars, it's the main fansite. Vadder 18:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - how exactly does this meet WP:WEB? None of the criteria are met. Barrylb 02:34, 12 June 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.