Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Damnyouall.net

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. fails WP:WEB --Madchester 09:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Damnyouall.net

De-prodded by anon with the compelling justification "Reason: up yours." Prod concern was "Non-notable web community, fails WP:WEB." Was speedied a few times back in December, it never got past "Family Guy based theme site. More info on the way," so I don't think it counts as a repost, unfortunately. -- Vary | Talk 02:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and the "up yours" comment by an anon user. Ryūlóng 02:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Ryūlóng. — Dark Shikari ^talk/_contribs 02:31, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Beyond the fact that the prod contest comment is quite uncivil and arguably demonstrates bad faith, this site has an Alexa rank of 599,525. There's also no citations provided in the article to suggest that it meets any of the other WP:WEB criteria. The forum appears non-notable. --FreelanceWizard 02:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all above. This is a compelling case for permitting re-prodding when there's no reason given for de-prodding something.--Kchase T 02:56, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Erechtheus 02:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, Alexa rank of 599,925. My mother's GeoCities page ranks higher than that. VoiceOfReason 03:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and lol VOR Nick Catalano _contrib ^talk 04:28, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — this page meets no guidelines for notability Betacommand 04:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -- Gogo Dodo 05:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete per nom. WP:VAIN Ohconfucius 07:33, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per "up yours" rootology (T) 08:46, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Lack of civility is not a valid reason for deletion. --HResearcher 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Agreed. However, lack of civility is evidence that the uncivil one has nothing better to say. That the contributor explained his deprodding with an epithet strongly suggests that he has no good reason for keeping the article. VoiceOfReason 14:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not notable. websitecruft. --HResearcher 12:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• delete Per nom. It's chuff like this that gives wikipedia a bad name. --Charlesknight 13:40, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Delete — per nom. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 17:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as webforum vanity and attack page. JIP | Talk 18:05, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. NN forum. Czj 18:44, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:WEB, and does not help that the Member section of the article is down right distrubing disturbing.-- danntm ^T _C 20:20, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

  Fixed spelling.-- danntm ^T _C 23:32, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per nom. - Paulus89 20:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, recreation of page which has been deleted four times previously, by three different admins (I was one of them). User:Zoe|(talk) 22:15, 8 August 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.