Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PHWOnline

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 no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PHWOnline

Non-notable website, disorganized page, lack of references.User_talk:LDMythos 0:17, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 00:10, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Passed notability in previous deletion challenge. Bad writing but WP:Deadline; someone will clean it up eventually. -Moritheil (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, I reverted some vandalism but even before that it didn't seem to have a deletion template. Just an oversight? -Moritheil (talk) 11:45, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Appears now to be fairly inactive, last comics were added in 2007, the forum sees VERY little traffic. If kept the article needs a complete re-write because it makes it sound like an active and functioning site. More like one on life support in a nursing home. Drawn Some (talk) 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here's a reliable source that mentions the site as part of an article on "gamics" (games and comics):[1]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. No sources where it is the primary subject or even discussed in depth, no apparent notability. Article appears to exist primarily as an excuse to dump an enormous bunch of external links at the bottom of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. It is rather sad that not a single reference has been added since its last AfD in 2005, although there are a few reviews out there eg [2] and [3]. According to Alexa they seem to be pretty inactive right now, but six months ago they had daily traffic in the many thousands of page views. 2007 seems to have been their peak period when they got into the top 50k which, while its not going to worry Disney, is quite reasonable. This seems to be borne out by the narrative in the article, that there best days are in the past. However, a website being semi-defunct is not a reason to delete its article - after all, we don't delete a BLP's article if the subject dies. If it was once notable, it is notable forever as far as the encyclopedia is concerned. Besides, this one is not quite gone yet. SpinningSpark 21:56, 17 May 2009 (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.