Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardschat.com

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 22:18, Jan 23, 2005 (UTC)

Cardschat.com
Well-written spam. -- Scott ei&#960;  08:07, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Not notable, delete --fvw *  08:13, 2005 Jan 17 (UTC)
 * Keep. I removed the POV part about "significant following". The article needs stub-expansion, though. I would estimate, given that it has 290 members, that's it's borderline on the "audience of 5000" (they allow anons to read, and a 20-to-1 ratio is reasonable) criterion. If anyone tries to spam by further linking it in with the wiki, then cut that. EventHorizon  talk 08:29, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: From my experience with message boards that keep view records, the normal ratio is around 10:1. --Carnildo 19:47, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, websites can easily gain an audience of 5000 without ever being noteworthy. Wasn't that criterion for books/authors? I can't see what makes this site special enough for inclusion. Mgm|(talk) 10:09, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't sound like there's anything particular about Cardschat.com that a site with the same subject-matter (which may have more members but still be non-notable) would not have. Stombs 11:14, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete 290 members is hardly impressive for a forum, and we don't even know how many of those are active. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd 12:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Unbelievable... Let me provide some more insight. User:Nick0r kept inserting links to cardschat.com on various articles (note:Nick0r admitted it was his site, and the nameservers are at nick0r.co.uk).  I explained to him that they were spam, why the site was non-notable, etc.  Now just a few days later isn't it amazing that an article on cardschat.com pops up?  Anyway, considering the merits of the article and the forum itself, it's not at all notable, has only a handful of members and a couple dozen threads.  As a comparison, a large forum (and potentially notable because some poker pros post there) would be cardplayer.com (CardPlayer Magazine).  CryptoDerk 16:44, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.