Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isgay.com

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. --- Glen 05:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Isgay.com

Contested prod, reason was "This website has circulated in many an office e-mail and it always creates controversy whenever I hear anyone speak about it. Many people think that someone created a site to bash them. It has value." However, the article does not assert notability. MER-C 03:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. Alexa ranking of 265,047 [1]--TBCTaLk?!? 03:37, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Pranks, no matter how clever, are not encyclopedia material. ♠PMC♠ 03:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per PMC. --Supermath 03:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and TBC. Danny Lilithborne 05:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I've actually seen this website years ago in high scool, but still not notable enough to keep. VegaDark 07:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete —Khoikhoi 08:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete -- not notable, and the site didn't function correctly using Firefox anyway ;) - Longhair 09:06, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:WEB as non notable. Thε Halo ^Θ 11:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, this was quite notorious at school when I was, like, fourteen. Immature, yeah, but notable enough, I think. Lankiveil 11:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC).
• Keep, per above. Shortfuse 17:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Doesn't belong here.UberCryxic 18:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Sorry, I don't find the "we loved it in school" criteria for establishing notability in any of the guidelines! :; --kingboyk 21:16, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — Entirely non encyclopedia material -- lucasbfr ^talk 23:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - non encyclopedic material. Upholder 16:31, 13 September 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.