This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Joyous (talk) 18:10, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

I don't agree that every fansite should have an entry in Wikipedia; this strikes me as advertising. There's no good reason why the DAC should be singled out for having its own entry. JohnDBuell | Talk 14:57, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I believe 600-odd registered users does not qualify as notable, even under the most liberal interpretation.Robert A West 15:10, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Claim to notability cannot be confirmed. To the contrary, "most popular" is dubious given that Alexa ranks it 208,000 vs www.douglasadams.com at 83,000. -Harmil 16:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: As noted in the Talk:Douglas Adams Continuum page, the "official" douglasadams.com site, maintained by the company Adams helped establish in the 1990s, isn't updated much anymore, nor does it have an active forum, and hasn't since Adams died. Perhaps if ANYTHING were to be merged back into Douglas Adams it would be the info on the various fan sites from that talk page, presented in a way so as not to appear like site advertising. --JohnDBuell | Talk 22:14, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, non-notable fansite per above. It's got its link in Douglas Adams, which is good enough. Dcarrano 17:42, July 22, 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.