Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arfenhouse


 * 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 &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:48, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Arfenhouse
Fairly typical web vanity/spam, failing WP:WEB miserably. There's no evidence of commentary or analysis outside of forums, no significant awards, and the movies are hosted on Newgrounds (a rather indiscriminate host). - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No significant results on google. Viridae 01:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, someone musta spent a lot of time on this one... but i suppose it does fail WP:WEB... ok, ok, delete. TrianaC 01:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ("No evidence of commentary or analysis outside of forums") AdamBiswanger1 01:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB miserably. --Coredesat 02:04, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Same as everyone else: fails WP:WEB. My mistake for contributing to it so much. TheGreenHerring 02:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per above --LBMixPro&lt;Sp e ak 04:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Hate to do it as it's a very substantial article (though it's plot would have needed rewritting), but simply not notable per WP:WEB. Hopefully it'll eventually get a little media coverage so that the substantial article can be restored. &mdash; ዮም   (Yom)  |  contribs  •  Talk  05:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, though it does look pretty funny. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  12:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete -- as above -- MrDolomite 14:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per WP:WEB -- Kungfu Adam ( talk ) 20:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn., fails WP:WEB, although has clearly taken a while to do. Also worth noting that none of the pictures have fair-use rationales. --Wisd e n17 22:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep has references. But delete the pictures if fair-use rationales aren't provided. Would benefit from inline references. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 22:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Near as I can tell, all of the references are to the works themselves. The link to the Pac-Man movie article on IMDB doesn't actually back up anything claimed in this article; it's more of a "for more information" link. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It has references... that is not to say that it is well-referenced. If it had more inline references (instead of external links), then it would be easier to tell what was verified and what wasn't, and move unverified portions to the talk page (or at least put Template:cite needed next to them). However, this is cause for cleanup, in my opinion, not deletion. Armedblowfish (talk|mail|contribs) 23:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom--128.115.27.10 19:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Arfenhouse is a classic piece of web history Orbframe 18:44, 27 June 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.