Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Twilight Fanfiction Awards


 * 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. – Juliancolton  | Talk 00:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

The Twilight Fanfiction Awards

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

Website fails WP:WEB, it has not been covered in any third-party reliable sources. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 21:59, 30 March 2009 (UTC) 
 * Comment - The PROD hasn't been removed, why has this been taken here? &mdash; neuro  (talk) (review) 22:00, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - It seems the other editor put the PROD up at nearly the same time I took it here, so they both existed. Since it was already here, I figured we might as well stick to AfD, since more consensus is never a bad thing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 22:26, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Every fandom with fanfiction has these awards. I've won them before with my writing and although it's an honor to be nominated or win one, it's something only the fandom can really share and appreciate, not most people in general or as part of an all-encompassing project like this.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:00, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * DeleteWell-intentioned, and probably appreciated by many outside the fanfic community, but it totally lacks any indendent sources so has obvious issues. - Mgm|(talk) 09:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete *sigh* no notability, there are probably copyright issues etc etc. reads like a story, in a personally invested tone... --Pstanton (talk) 02:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability, or any mention whatsoever outside of the fanfiction community, which hardly count as independent sources fuzzy510 (talk) 03:16, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  --  I 'mperator 15:34, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Totally not notable or important. The article is nothing but self-promotion. BecauseWhy? (talk) 09:35, 7 April 2009 (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.