Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kingdom Hearts Insider

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 04:11, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kingdom Hearts Insider[edit]

Claims notability, so not a speedy, but still has no evidence of meeting WP:WEB. Alexa rank is 125,844, if you're into that. —Cryptic 09:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - notability aside, I think many of their pages probably infringe copyright (example - hi-res cover scans with no assertion of copyright - wouldn't be allowed on here, right?). Bubba hot ep 10:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:WEB. Maybe in a few years when it's bigger and more known, but at the moment it's not notable enough. Jayden54 16:06, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep its already huge, and itll get bigger, so might as well keep. And Bubba hotep, eBaums World has tons of copyrighted things on its site, but it still has a wiki, and is in the top 1000.69.150.73.24 17:31, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the website does not met the notability standards at WP:WEB. And a note to the anon - just because eBaum's World has an article doesn't mean this site gets one, too. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 20:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:WEB, potential notability does not equal current notability. We can't leave it here expecting it to grow into a large site, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, after all. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:57, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the only real claims resembling proof of notability are given in terms of member and post count, and the one source given is a link to a thread in the forum itself. Sorry that I'm not interested enough in registering an account there to see what the assertion is, but most viewers wouldn't be either. -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:39, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. PresN 05:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems more like an advert (WP:NOT) than an encyclopedia article. The Kinslayer 09:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete............................. Oh, you wanted a reason ? How about because it's non-notable, and looks like an advert to boot. And it makes me want to staple my nose to the desk. WMMartin 18:28, 29 November 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.