Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Venom's Gate

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. Mailer Diablo 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Venom's Gate

This article is essentially an advertisement for the author's non-notable website. This article is the first google result for the phrase, and the next result is an ezboards site. The article includes no link but claims the subject of the article is 'popular'. The talk page is littered with arguments between the site's admin (the author of the page) and a member. Diagonalfish 16:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Checked the history and the content of the article also seems to be subject to little edit wars between members writing descriptions of "notable" and banned users of this non-notable site. Pointless insider drama about some other site and not Wikicivil anyway. They should go argue on that website. Dina 16:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Non-notable and no verifiable sources are cited to claim otherwise. Scorpiondollprincess 18:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep If you've bother to even look into the article today (July 27, 06) they seemed to have rid their entry of such things as minor notable characters (ealier catagorized as 'Other's' in the Notable Characters. They've also decided, apparently, to reject the fact they are popular. In the introductory section they say they are simply an ORPG site with minor popularity which was earned through-out advertisemant and 'spamming.' Also, if the site was non-notable...why are you debating it's fate?

And by 'they', you mean you, as you made the latest edits. Nontheless, as you yourself pointed out, if the site is unpopular and non-notable, why argue? Diagonalfish 20:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, dear, you see, I'm am them. I'm one of them, rather. You see, I would really rather enjoy having the Wiki up and running. Who knows, if you allow it to stay up, it may become more popular...And the reason I did point out the fact it wasn't completely known through-out the web was...So you would shut-up...Thanks!

Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and promotion of websites. Sorry. Diagonalfish 05:33, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. No plausible claim to notability. Geoffrey Spear 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right, Diagonal, and, you all can, should you want to, delete, doesn't matter anyways, seeing as how the site is begining to cave in on itself. Probably from the influx of inactive users, the leaving of the original admin, and the petty fights.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.57.175.135 (talk • contribs) .

• Delete as non-notable with no claim to notability. Ifnord 15:25, 2 August 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.