Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samus.co.uk


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 01:39, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Samus.co.uk
Fan site; Alexa traffic rating in the 1,500,000 range. Tim Pierce 03:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per nom. Non-notable fan website.&#160;—  The KMan  talk  04:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete I don't think it merits it's own entry; it has about 680 Google hits from other sites. It's possible that it may be appropriate for the external links section in Metroid. Ohnoitsjamie 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)


 * No incoming wikilinks. No "link:" results. No major media coverage. However, forum has 500 members that have posted more than 15 times. Also, samusforum.co.uk has 300K alexa rank. -- Perfecto 04:06, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Perfecto and nom, see WP:WEB -- Thesquire (talk - contribs) 07:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Alexa rank and no other claim of notability. JHMM13 (T | C) [[Image:Flag of the United States.svg|25px| ]] [[Image:Flag of Germany.svg|25px|  ]] 14:49, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Dan 19:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. NeoJustin 23:38, January 3, 2006 (UTC)
 * The site has had media coverage. It's been featured in a few video game publications, such as EGM. (Currently looking for scans of articles.) RandomExtremity
 * Delete nn. --kingboyk 20:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with Ohnoitsjamie's entry, in that it could (and should) have a link on the Metroid page, but as a non-official website does not merit its having a page to itself, particularly because anything to be learned from this page could be learned on the website itself, and also because it doesn't have a history that could logically be documented here, as the website itself is around three years old, at most. Ajbolt89 17:00, 5 January 2006 (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.