Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Potterish

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete. Socktastic. Redwolf24 02:49, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Potterish

Delete. Non-notable website spam. JDoorjam 17:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep. I am a HUGE fan of this website, and it is really important here in Brasil, It is the most notable website in that area, and they do diserve - as the other important websites of this subejct- a link in winkipedia, How can it be Spam when it does not have any related links about this site on the page???? (anonymously posted by 201.1.98.99) <-- first vote by this user

Keep. Potterish is a very good website about Harry Potter. Updated daily with relevant news about everything related to Harry Potter books and movies. It is not a spam website! (anonymously posted by 201.21.18.239) <-- second vote

Keep. It is not fair these votes for deletion since there are similar websites in Wikipedia. (anonymously posted by 200.17.114.40) <-- third vote

• Delete as sockpuppet-supported spam, although this is certainly better formatted than most. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable website spam. POV. Highly suspect anonymous votes for. --Lomedae 18:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

• Abstain. Alexa rank about 330,000. I would prefer articles about Mugglenet.com and The Leaky Cauldron.org first, because those have much higher traffic rankings and have received fansite awards from Harry Potter author J.K Rowling. (BTW, I did some formatting right at the moment you were reading it :))- Mgm|^(talk) 18:18, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

KeepMugglenet and The Leaky Cauldron alread have articles... (posted anonymously by 201.1.98.99, again.) <-- fourth vote

Keep. Potterish is the best brazilian website about Harry Potter. There is no spam on the website and I think the brazilian fans deserve a website on their language...not everyone speak english (anonymously posted by 201.12.190.37, first and only edit) <-- fifth vote

• Keep. Trollderella 18:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: so far this is all delete or abstain votes, some Brazilian sockpuppets, and Trollderella who votes Keep for EVERYTHING. Just so we're keeping track here.JDoorjam 19:28, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Just another fansite. -R. fiend 18:37, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete' Fancruft. -- < drini | ∂drini > 19:42, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Fancruft, probably vanity. Martg76 20:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete spam, vanity, supported by sockpuppets. - ulayiti (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Dottore So 20:48, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Damn puppets - always a bad sign. --PhilipO 23:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Keep It! if Mugglenet can, why they can't? <-- 6th vote. Quite a sock drawer. JDoorjam 22:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Sock puppets where it hurts them most. Alf 23:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete fancruft, not surprisingly supported by sockpuppets. --Etacar11 23:57, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note: part, and then the entire page just deleted by anon who has voted six times. (Restored by JDoorjam 00:14, 19 August 2005 (UTC))
  • And just partly and entirely deleted again, bringing the score for this anon to Votes:6, Vandalism:4. JDoorjam 02:05, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Who knew that sockpuppets were Harry Potter fans too. Capitalistroadster 01:42, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

That's what you get for letting in HP book articles in before release.Alf 16:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete there's something about socks that make me reach for my "vote - d" button. Oh, and the website is just one of the 8 billion or so, so is nn as it stands. -Splash 02:57, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Delete per Splash. Punkmorten 21:07, 20 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.