Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Storm-Artists
- 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. Sr13 06:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
- Storm-Artists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- Delete - fails WP:SOAP; it's simply a promotion of a Web site PatriciaT 22:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Non-notable, tiny art site. Kargath64 00:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete no independent references... and a websearch couldn't pull up anything that looks credible that deals with this (many hits for "Storm Artist," but nothing for this.)Balloonman 02:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:N, no sourcing. --tennisman 03:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
- Delete non-notable. I can't find any references that would qualify as reliable, and the article doesn't cite any third part sources at all. Hut 8.5 14:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Delete. This is almost a speedy deletion candidate (advert), however AFD seems better in this particular case, as that could be controversial. If it was kept, it would need to have all the useless information removed (an encyclopedia should not list every admin/moderator, as it becomes a directory, which is specified in WP:NOT). Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)- Delete. Not notable, not encyclopedic. Roccondil 10:29, 25 June 2007 (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.