Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EFans (website)


 * 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   Snow Delete. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

EFans (website)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the multitude of sources, this website appears non-notable. The sources are a collection of blogs and forum posts, plus one regurgiated press release. There's no significant coverage in truly reliable, independent sources. Huon (talk) 00:20, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - So immensely WP:OVERLINK-ed that we have to deal with that first. Looking at the article I'm not seeing any stubstantial claim to to it's notability. Hasteur (talk) 03:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete appears to fail our web guidelines. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - advert. Also a copy of a declined article at WP:AFC, so may come under A10. Mdann52 (talk) 11:13, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - no news, books or reliable sources turn up in a search, current list of sources all looks unreliable. Ritchie333  (talk)  (cont)   11:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:15, 6 February 2013 (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.