Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donkey Kong galaxy

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. Titoxd^(?!?) 01:24, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Donkey Kong galaxy

Non notable site, 716 hits according to site counter. Quoting the article, Although the site isn't well known it has plenty of sections. No Alexa ranking. [1] Deprod'ed without comment. [2] -- ReyBrujo 14:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, but never trust an Alexa ranking, they are far too easy to falsify. The article fails WP:WEB. The site's on a free web host, slow to load, and is just another goshdarned fansite with nothing special about it. Article should go. Fiddle Faddle 15:20, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --AlexDW 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not even close. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 22:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable website. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-04 01:52Z
• Keep, still better than nothing.--Taida 00:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Could you expand on your vote, please? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 07:56Z

I believe he is an m:Inclusionist. -- ReyBrujo 12:31, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• • • There is no other article that has the name "Donkey kong Galaxy" so we should keep this article.--Taida 19:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, that reason is not useful. By your argument no article could be deleted, even one called Taidawang is an inclusionist. I respect inclusionists who generally argue to keep articles by giving good reasons on each one, but "no other article has the name 'X'" is not helpful. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-06 20:20Z
        • The article called Taidawang is an incluseionist does not exist. Also this article is better than nothing and no other article has the name "Donkey Kong Galaxy" so it shouldn't be deleted.--Taida 20:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
          • You said that already. Cheers. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-07-07 05:02Z
            • I know I did, I was just simply repeating it for you.--Taida 16:41, 7 July 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.