Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dragonlance Nexus

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 keep. - Bobet 11:17, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dragonlance Nexus

nn fansite, alexa around 800,000, fails WP:WEB Giant onehead 22:18, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete No evidence that it meets WP:WEB. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, one of two only online references for Dragonlance content, extremely helpful when making new articles, almost all Dragonlance articles reference the nexus. ddcc 14:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, not only do many, many fans, sites (including the Portal:Dragonlance), authors, and game designers use the site, but the number you have shown of 800,000 is VERY misleading. You only did one of the addresses, which is also dl3e.com. The site had just changed over from that address to the dlnexus.com not too many months ago. Google the word "Dragonlance" and it appears there on the front page. The Nexus was built "by the fans, for the fans".--Kranar drogin 00:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above statements. DoomsDay349 00:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Ah, more wikipedia-users-with-delusions-of-grandeur trying to get rid of useful content. Some people need lives. And DLNexus is a useful, well-known, and well-respected web site. ShannonA 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Please review WP:NPA. Personal attacks are not welcome on Wikipedia. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Expansive site. Listed references of the nexus include third party sources, like Wizards of the Coast, and one of Dragonlance's co-creators. Granakrs 15:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: technically meets WP:WEB#3, as the fan gaming rules on dlnexus have been republished on dragonlance.com (now owned by Sovereign Press). Article could use better referencing, but nothing there seems to be unverifiable in principle. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 04:13, 4 October 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.