Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HornFans (3rd nomination)

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. Little discussion, but it is actually the "keep" opinion that provides no argument and is therefore discounted. Sandstein 21:33, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

HornFans

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Alexa rank of 1,288,532. Fan-stuff site. Fails WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 09:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:07, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Happy holidays! ^{Babymissfortune} 10:08, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination ignores previous consensus to Keep and offers no additional justification. Buffs (talk) 19:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A commercial fansite, nothing remarkable. Since hornfans is a commercial entity, it should also be looked at in relation to the criteria for organizations. None of the references in the article (or quoted in previous AfD's) meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, article fails GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:10, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then why have we kept it twice before? Asserting non-notability without clarification seems a bit vague. Buffs (talk) 01:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oddly enough, I thought stating that None of the references in the article (or quoted in previous AfD's) meet the criteria for establishing notability. References fail WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH, article fails GNG was crystal clear. Certainly a clearer justification than your "It passed AfD previously". I'm not sure I can make it any clearer. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:29, 9 January 2018 (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.