Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAWs.ws (2nd nomination)


 * 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-- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:05, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

CAWs.ws

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable forum and fansite. Was kept at the previous AfD without many !voters, but I don't feel it meets notability guidelines. The mention in Gamesmaster magazine is trivial coverage per WP:WEB, and states "Our favourite is www.caws.ws, which has CAWs so realistic they look like they've been photographed - and, um, some slightly less realistic ones. Check these out..." with a few pictures of images. The article fails WP:ATT as the entire article is written from the primary source, there is no non-trivial coverage in secondary sources from which an encyclopedic article can be created. One Night In Hackney 303 19:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete as original research and failing to establish notability by reference to on-trivial secondary independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep the website certainly is a notable one and should be kept. It is the largest fansite serving users of wrestling games with a CAW mode. Since the article was created, the site has tripled in size. As an example the main community areas have had more than 1.4 million messages posted to them in just under a year and the website as a whole has gone from 2m hits a month to more than 2m a day. Can be verified at johnb [at] caws.ws. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs). — 86.143.11.253 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete - This is not an argument for inclusion under WP:WEB. The number of user and messages posted does not apply for notability under WP:WEB.  Unless you can find independent, reliable sources that assert and support notability this article should be deleted.  --Haemo 00:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - This article may or may not be original research. Answers.com has pretty much the same information, but I'm betting that it was simply copied from Wikipedia. However, there is still little attribution and I don't see too much in the way of Notability. The only media coverage is a weak mention in a magazine. Kopf1988 16:59, 4 March 2007 (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.