Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Forums

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 delete – Gurch 15:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mark_Forums

Non-notable. Spent a very brief time in February in top 100,000 websites hasn't been there since[1] only 59 hits on google, most of which seem to be junk links. A 126 member forum isn't exactly notable, especially since it doesn't seem to have any claim to fame. Crossmr 05:06, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - sorry to those 126 people, but this is not notable —Mets501^talk 07:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as it doesn't come close to WP:WEB standards of notability. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:11, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete obviuos failure of WP:WEB Ydam 11:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as not notable. Deli nk 12:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry guys, but we were down for a LONG time, which is why we dropped in rankings. We get about 200+ posts daily, but ok, let's just wait until we get back up into the higher rankings, :)

Feel free to delete, I totally understand. ^_^ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.207.202 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 7 June 2006.

• Comment That was Mark, the site owner - he doesn't know the proper posting format. Matt 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Markforums is brilliant, and it was very notable until it unfortunately got hacked. Matt 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

-

Brilliant or not, there is no google evidence that anyone else considered it brilliant and thus had no notability. Were it that it was notable at some past point, the evidence of such would still be around. --Crossmr 22:42, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment It was notable enough to targeted by hackers? Matt 23:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

you might want to read this WP:WEB it doesn't satisfy the criteria to be considered notable. --Crossmr 23:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Comment OK. I agree, as Mark said - he can write it later when it is notable. Matt 15:26, 8 June 2006 (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.