Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/D69ers

(1) We are NOT MuggleNet based (2) I find no vanity in the site to which I devoted time and energy (3) We are known infamously or not among the HP Community and in many other forums and places (4) The vast majority that was copied into our article was from our official forum which have 100+ members and over 21,0000 posts (5) Do what you must one day we will be large enough, considering the site has barely opened (main site that is) it is no wonder we have less than 100 google hits (I have gone through measures to be indexed by the major search engines) I have set up a stat counter less than 7 jours ago and 50+ unique visitores form a dozen or so countries have visited in that six hour time span, we will become larger over time, do what you must we will be back (6) The reason we are at the top of MN's links page is not for alphabetical reasons (the person who started this VFD should learn his/her alphabet T is later in the alphabet than G.


 * My guess, User:70.49.221.122, is that this is the first time you have come to the Wikipedia, and that therefore you are not acquainted with our terminology or our deletion policy. If so, welcome! I'd like to comment on the points you bring up:

The reason I have spent time writing this is because I want you to understand that the deletion of the article is not a personal attack against your website. Hopefully you'll stick around and help out at the Harry Potter WikiProject. I suggest you register a username so that you can have your contributions attributed to you and that your IP address will be secure. Thanks! --Kwekubo 15:34, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) Your original history seemed to claim that the group first formed on a MuggleNet sub-forum, 'December 1969', but you probably know more about this than me.
 * 2) In Wikipedia, calling an article or information within an article vanity means that the information looks like it promotes the interests of the person who wrote it. It does not mean your site is 'vain' but that there seems to be a conflict of interest in the person who wrote it. The basic principle is, "Could you see this article being in a print encyclopaedia?" d69ers.com doesn't chart within the top 100,000 websites on Alexa.com - this is only one point of reference, but it suggests that your site is just not widely known enough to be included in a general encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. See Vanity guidelines.
 * 3) Quoting from Votes for deletion/Precedents, "Communities, message boards and blogs are generally not notable". Can you provide verifiable proof from sources outside your website that it is particularly infamous? Verifiability is important - although infamy was claimed in the article, it was not exactly verifiable.
 * 4) Our licence, the GNU Free Documentation License, means that copyrighted work cannot be added without permission from the work's creator. As is said at the bottom of every editing page on Wikipedia, "By submitting your work you promise you wrote it yourself, or copied it from public domain resources." It was not clear whether the history to which you are referring was added by the person who wrote it, so without explicit permission, it could not be included here.
 * 5) Please refrain from making threats to force the inclusion of an article on your site. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means that we try to make sure that the information in this encyclopaedia is accurate, verifiable and unbiased. This article was not put up for VFD as an attack against you - we aren't out to get you here! - and if the website becomes bigger in the future then very good! Someone may well write an article about it in the future.
 * 6) I started this VFD, but I don't recall making any comment about the alphabetical listing of your site.