Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bardic Web


 * 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. --Ezeu 04:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Bardic Web
Vanity, advertising, not notable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Suitov (talk • contribs) 11:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Silverthorn 14:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have read through the Guide to Deletion and note that it states, "Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style." The style of article is also comparable to many other articles in the same category, that being Internet_forums. Whilst I do not deny that Bardic Web is not as large as other companies such as Ezboard, for example, it is still perhaps notable for the duration of continuous activity as noted in the statement that "Bardic Web includes within its Scrolls both new and original ideas, as well as communities such as the Cagliostro that are seven years old and counting, which makes them amongst the oldest RP/Writing communities around with continuous activity." Is it possible, therefore, that rather than deletion, this article could instead be proposed for clean-up if fellow Wikipedians deem it necessary? And if this was so, what alterations would they feel would satisfy the requirements of this community?
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. (Liberatore, 2006). 12:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment to Silverthorn. WP:WEB is the relevant set of guidelines - if  you can provide verifiable evidence that your site is notable (as defined in that article), then it should stay. Tevildo 12:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - No real references, not an abundance of unique Google hits. Does not seem WP:WEB.  Wickethewok 14:53, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The History and Development section of the article in question has been updated with references in the hope of answering some of the questions raised in this discussion Silverthorn 16:45, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Simply putting external links to EZBoard and such in an article does not mean it meets WP:WEB. Your website needs to have either won a notable award, been the subject of a decent amount of press, or be distributed through multiple non-trivial sources.  So far, I don't see how this subject meets WP:WEB.  Wickethewok 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. --Coredesat talk 21:10, 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.