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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 20:51, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Name recieves only 40 unique Google hits, article is sourced only to the website itself, and it reads like an ad. tmopkisntlka 23:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I think whether or not it is notable needs to be more closely examined. It's forums have gotten more than a million postings. --HResearcher 09:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Abit seems to think they are notable. That's good enough for me. I've removed the 2nd paragaph that sounded like an ad and tagged the article as a stub. --Mitaphanetalk 20:16, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I can't decide. The forums have 30,230 registered users, but the article doesn't satisfy WP:WEB ("The article itself must provide proof that its subject meets one of these criteria via inlined links or a 'Reference' or 'External link' section."). Powers 21:33, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just having 30,230 members in the forum means nothing. Most are just user accounts made for SPAM, or people who registered and forgot to post. Dalponis 00:10, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
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.