Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Love Philosophy

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. Deizio talk 12:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I Love Philosophy

Not notable as per WP:WEB Phileas 00:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom (and second nominee in a row that misuses apostrophes - I am probably doing too much proofreading in real life right now and probably should go on a break). Agent 86 01:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete per nom. Not the least notable forum I've ever voted to delete, but still doesn't pass WP:WEB. -- Vary | Talk 01:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. cøøkiə Ξ _(talk) 01:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as is. Article not written in NPOV style also at all. Lsjzl 02:36, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 63,379 [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:08, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB, and it seems like an Ad to me. --WinHunter ^(talk) 04:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn per WP:WEB ILovePlankton 04:13, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, fails WP:WEB and WP:NPOV. Considering how much this nomination has been vandalized, I'm sad that I can't suggest speedy deletion. --Coredesat 05:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• After some research, I'm going to try this anyway. Speedy delete, as the creator of the article (Centripetal Farce) has been vandalizing this AfD debate. --Coredesat 08:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete another obscure forum fails WP:WEB --Alphachimp ^talk 06:05, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. It fails WP:WEB, is also has an Alexa rank: 63,379 (though that's not as a crashingly awful as some that come through AFD) - Motor (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Its Alexa rank might warrant an external link in Philosophy, but not a separate article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Comment The editor spent a lot of time vandalising user pages and has been temp. blocked. Just a note. Lsjzl 14:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB Computerjoe's talk 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete --->|Newyorktimescrossword 20:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete, or if some people strongly want to keep the content, merge. It certainly doesn't warrant its own article. Anand 22:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete We99 23:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Wep 21:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• note: This article was created by the screenname of a user banned from the I Love Philosophy web forums who has a grude to bear against the administration of said website. This entry as of 24-Jun-20006 was not representative of the actual website in question.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdv (talk • contribs) 17:06, June 24, 2006
• note: The user banned from said forums did not create this out of a grudge. In fact, they bear no grudge whatsoever toward the administration of I Love Philosophy. The article was created out of satire in an attempt to get a laugh out of other forum members, something that it has succeeded in doing. Centripetal Farce18:34, June 24, 2006}}

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.