Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Last Alliance Website

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 Speedy delete, WP:CSD criteria G11 and A7, and we don't need a bruising debate for the creator. Guy 22:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Last Alliance Website

Nonnotable website, Alexa ranking of 1,010,839. NawlinWiki 14:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and Merge into Games Workshop Online Community (not the whole article, just relevant sourcable information). The style of this article is very worrisome, and far too informal. This article does not link to any other articles, which would normally merit deletion automatically. The current article lacks sources, is written in the first person and goes against Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutrality and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. --Grimhelm 14:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - No merge. Fails every policy/guideline applicable. Wickethewok 17:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete G-11. This is spam and should be removed post-haste. The editor's contributions have only covered this website,[1] a possible violation of WP:COI. EVula 18:42, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Is now no longer in first person (though there was only one sentence anyway...), uses internal links, has had the supposed 'vanity' sections removed, and other various suggestions incorporated. Some, yet not conclusive, sources have been added. And the only reason why this is the only article I have edited is that I joined only yesterday; since posting this I have had to constantly update it to try and get it accepted. ChrisWilliams1000
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB (yet). MidgleyDJ 19:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
• Page now meets wiki notability criteria WP:WEB It demonstrates it has won indepedant awards and shows that it has been published in independant and verifiable sources. Madusmatus 21.25 23 October 2006
• The content has been distributed through both an independent online website and publication, meeting notability criterion (3), the most obvious example being in WD 300 as mentioned. It has also been the subject of 'non-trivial published works' (White Dwarf) in which it has been described as 'great' with a 'huge wealth of material' as also mentioned. Added to that the award for 'Best LotR SBG website', a contest of note amongst the Games Workshop Online Community when it was taking place with many categories, it could be argued the site fits all three notability criteria. Also, whatever happened to This guideline?... It's not as though I am deliberately setting out to destroy the site... - ChrisWilliams1000 21:32, 23 October 2006
  • I haven't seen anyone attacking you, so I'm unsure of why you're citing WP:BITE. The closest thing has been from me stating that pushing The Last Alliance on Wikipedia has been practically your sole activity here, which is a true statement. EVula 22:32, 23 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.