Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Hot Pawn


 * 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.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 19:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Red Hot Pawn

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No evidence of substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources.  MBisanz  talk 13:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete (I prod'd this article before, with the same rationale). &mdash; Werdna  &bull;  talk  13:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete The WikiPedia entry for RedHotPawn has been targetted by an ex-user (I'll call him Mr V - although he appears to post on Wiki mostly under the name crowleyrhp - the RHP part of the name being noteworthy) who was banned for posting inappropriate comments in the RHP forums. He has subsequently found an effective way to exact his revenge by defacing the RedHotPawn Wiki entry and attacking the guys who run the RHP site.  This has quickly been raised to a stage where an entry which has been effectively dormant and unviewed for years now finds itself is up for deletion - following which a charming email was sent to the site owners proclaiming the victory.  It would certainly be a relief if the page did not exist - I suspect very few people have any interest in it and I suspect also that the original creators, Mr V, and the people in this discussion are the only ones who have ever seen it.  The deletion will at least go someway to satisfying this person's frustration which would personally make me feel quite fluffy inside.  I'm guessing that this is the correct place to include this information - I got a slap across the wrist a couple of days ago from a WikiPedia editor for changing the RedHotPawn Wiki entry to remove one of Mr V's nasty comments under my original WikiPedia name "RedHotPawn" - for which I certainly apologise - I didn't mean any harm - I had thought I was doing the right thing by changing it.  My only fear is that once the RedHotPawn entry is removed, he will simply create it again - can this be prevented? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitmo2002 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep If they are notable, removing the page because it is being vandalized is not the solution. The page can be protected if necessary. Removing it because it is being attacked would not be NPOV. I don't think it would be right even if it were a matter of BLP, and this is just a chess site. DGG (talk) 19:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete I agree with DGG vandalism is not a fully valid reason to delete a page, but I think this site is not notable enough to be worth an article. SyG (talk) 22:30, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Nothing notable. There are a few of these sites (Chess Corner is another one) with similar formats. Correspondence chess already exists, so the most that RHP could possibly warrant is an external link from that article. Brittle heaven (talk) 23:34, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article does not reference any reliable secondary sources, failing WP:N and WP:V. Additionally, I could not find any sources that would meet WP:RS in order to reference this article.  Gazi moff  07:19, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for the reasons given by Gazimoff. Krakatoa (talk) 12:54, 19 December 2008 (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.