Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yay Hooray


 * 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 Samir धर्म 07:36, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Yay Hooray

 * — (View AfD)

No assertion of notability made. Fails WP:WEB. The content has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The website or content has not won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization. The content is not distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster. Article should be deleted. RWR8189 00:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Seems like a quite funny forum though. Not that I'll bother trying to get invited. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 00:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ŞρІϊţ ۞ ĨήƒϊήίтҰ (тąιк 01:40, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete basically like the nom says WP:WEB. &mdash; Seadog Talk 02:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Abysmal failure of WP:WEB. S h a r k f a c e  2 1 7  03:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - even though alexa = 18,159:, it still fails WP:WEB. MER-C 04:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB. Ter e nce Ong 04:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per well-written nomination, WP:WEB and WP:V. -- Satori Son 05:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, no evidence from WP:RS that site meets WP:WEB. -- Kinu t /c  07:25, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - fails WP:WEB and WP:V, and no claims to any notability whatsoever in the article. Jayden54 17:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. TheRingess 20:19, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:V & WP:WEB just for starters. SkierRMH 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete insufficiently sourced for WP:WEB hooray!-- danntm T C 01:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete absolutely fails WP:WEB, as nom succinctly and thoroughly documented. --Krich (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per others and policy.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom FirefoxMan 16:52, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep as experiments in self-regulating community developement on the internet is rare and relatively undocumented. Deletion would be eliminating one of the truly independant community forumns in which users can dictate the direction and content of the site without moderator intervention. While the content and users are crass and aggressive, the intent of the site is to experiment with the creation of online communities, which is successful for a board with no common intent or interest. Its individuality amongst a sea of interest specific, moderated forums, is noteworthy in itself.mrRed
 * Comment: the website would not be deleted just because the wp article would. Further, claiming something is "noteworthy in itself" isn't a very substantial claim. If others agreed that it was noteworthy in itself, it would have passed under WP:WEB. It doesn't, and alas, it isn't. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 20:22, 22 December 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.