Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell.com


 * 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 keep. howcheng  [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149;  e  ] 20:06, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Hell.com
Advertising and unencyclopedic article on a non-notable website. └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 16:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and expand) - A real and notable website; the article could do with expansion though. - Wezzo 17:30, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's authenticity isn't in question, what makes you say notable? └UkPaolo/TALK┐ 17:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * It's an important secretive society that many people may look to WP to find out about. Top search result for 'hell'; many people have wondered what it is on a variety of Usenet groups and forums. Perhaps not inherently notable, but the secrecy that surrounds it is. - Wezzo 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep - Man oh man, hell.com has been around since nearly the beginning of the world wide web. It has a lot of history associated with it.  Definitely not deletion material.  --Cyde Weys talkcontribs 18:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wow, is hell.com still around? I remember trying to get into it years ago. Not an experience I'd like to repeat, but that's beside the point. Internet legend. 143,000 Google hits. Alexa rank 155,143. Herostratus 18:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I removed my original speedy tag because I feel that on the discussion page, they gave good reasons as to why the page should stay. Lancer Sykera 19:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Hell is a web legend. rodii 23:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (and expand) - I wrote the original article and said myself that it required expansion. But as per above, Hell.com is extremely notable, and I was devastated that WP didn't have a single word on it. It is legend, it is WWW history. -- Alfakim -- talk  14:34, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep / Expand -- Site is obectively notable by word-of-mouth & Google test, and is a topic that Internet users may be logically assumed to periodically seek information on. It behooves Wikipedia to have that information. That said, this article needs to impart more than "This site is weird and people are curious about it." It also needs to not be intentionally cryptic. Adrian Lamo 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree, but unfortunately I don't have that information - by having an article, hopeuflly people who DO have information can add to it. However, there is already plenty there that your average viewer doesn't know. -- Alfakim -- talk  12:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep -- VERY notable and important net.art site. Article could definitely use some cleanup. MrBook 15:41, 19 December 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.