Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WorldLink Forums

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WorldLink Forums

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

Non-notable website: I can’t find any reliable sources. Speedily deleted under this title and also under Worldlink forums. The present incarnation should also have been speedily deleted, but someone removed the tag. —teb728 t c 20:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (websites) and I see no sources to salvage it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ascii002 (talk · contribs · guestbook) 03:10, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - article about an obviously non-notable website. Aside: as noted above, the speedy deletion tag was removed; the editor who did that said to me: "after looking at their site (helping children build websites) I thought they deserve a chance" ([1]) and whilst I have some sympathy, that does not seem to be a good enough reason to ignore all rules. In any case, the proposal is to delete Wikipedia's article about the website, not the website itself - that will continue to "help children build websites" whether or not the Wikipedia article exists. RichardOSmith (talk) 05:15, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you—except for your reference to IAR: The removal of the speedy tag (although mistaken IMHO) was done in accord with normal rules. —teb728 t c 06:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any coverage in reliable sources. Speedy shouldn't have been removed. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Not notable, and leaving this page in existence unhelpfully gives the children the mistaken idea that this is appropriate content for the encyclopedia. PamD 15:27, 20 November 2015 (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.