Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Star Wars Epics Forums


 * 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. (As a side note, plenty of old pages fall through the cracks here. Also, if I can AfD a page that's four years old, no article is sacred based on the amount of time it has been here.) Grand  master  ka  20:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Star Wars Epics Forums
Non-notable forum. Alexa rank around 5 million at the time of nomination. Delete as original research as well. Wickethewok 02:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Michael 04:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable website. Fabricationary 04:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, please. --circuitloss 15:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, it's a growing and very active community. Corran Antilles 23:04, 19 July 2006
 * Keep, google ranking of 5 - notable for being that highly ranked at only 1 year old at current domain. Thera2400 9:37, 20 July 2006 (EST)
 * What? Its the number 5 result when you type the name of the website into Google.  Is that what you mean?  If this was a measure of notability, we would have had a featured article on Clifford's Cat Hats already (it has a Google ranking of 1 according your measures, which I assume means it is 5 times as popular as your site).  Also, this is my favorite reason for keeping an article about a forum ever.  Wickethewok 15:38, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm glad I could amuse you. That's not what I meant.  The google pagerank is 5.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 (talk • contribs)
 * Ah, I get it. Still, thats not a criteria of WP:WEB or any sort of proof of notability.  Wickethewok 14:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete -- per nom --T-rex 14:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Wow, this article has been around since April... how has this been here for that long without getting deleted...?  I'm surprised it even made it through the new page patrol... Wickethewok 14:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yet another reason to keep it, everyone who saw it for 3 months apparently felt it was worthy. But I won't contest further.  Thera2400/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.0.196.74 (talk • contribs) 15:43, 20 July 2006 (EST)


 * Delete not even close to passing WP:WEB, and the article is horrendous. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  17:58, 21 July 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.