Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digitaldreamdoor


 * 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. Kirill Lokshin 00:39, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Digitaldreamdoor
nn website, alexa ranking of 73,589. User:Zoe|(talk) 00:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete Advert. Flowerparty ■ 01:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Advert, not notable forum. *drew 02:48, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. I wouldn't be adverse to deletion. However, the site is used as a reference by a featured article. Of course, this doesn't really change anything. Deltabeignet 02:56, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as ad NSLE  ( 讨论 ) \< extra > 08:32, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if it weren't advertising the site would be non-notable. Burn all adverts!- Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C] :: AfD? 18:55, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Don't delete Digitaldreamdoor at all. What does a "not notable forum" have to do with anything? A forum is a forum. There's no justification that DDD is "non-notable" either. "Minor website or not", it is a significant tool online and very popular with Google.com. This is the only site that even tackles such lists which alone makes it unique. I guess this isn't a "free where anyone can edit" type of deal. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Wiki is supposed to spread info right? How many rules, etc., can you guys have? It's not like someone's posting garbage or a website that doesn't even exist. It's just one decent page--leave it alone and let it be.
 * Comment/Abstain. Because of the infinitely vast scope of the internet, along with the relatively limited space on the Wikipedia servers, it is agreed by many Wikipedia users that only websites with a significant user base or the sumject of mass media attention should be kept. There is an attempt to assemble aguideline at WP:WEB, which gives a list of criteria a website should meet to be included on Wikipedia. The website fails on two of the three counts in the current incarnation of the proposal; alexa rating of 73,000, and forum membership or roughly 2,000 users over five forums. Saberwyn 06:43, 8 November 2005 (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.