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, vote stacking votes not given consideration. Jersey Devil 05:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EWCF[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

EWCF (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Non-notable website that fails WP:V, WP:RS. Related article EWCF Carnage has been up for deletion a few days ago while another related article was recently deleted as well.   oakster  TALK  12:13, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Fails WP:CORP as well. MER-C 12:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom, non-notable. One Night In Hackney 18:36, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable site, as above. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete as this is on the NYSE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.149.58 (talk • contribs)

Er, the link on the page to the NYSE comes back as being invalid, searches for EWCF and ECWF come up blank... Tony Fox (arf!) 04:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The NYSE code is only there because the infobox was taken off the World Wrestling Entertainment article and modified. --  oakster  TALK  18:25, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not Delete page is being updated. The website it covers has over 25,000 page views and a search for EWCF on Google brings up more than half of the results on page 1 being about this very site. The EWCF is very relevant and I have not been able to update the Wiki page with all of the proper info. The NYSE was not put there by me and will be removed.... Kingsoprano71819:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User's fifth edit --  oakster  TALK  00:08, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do Not as 25,000 is enough to stay.* koberulz
• Do Not Delete this page because with all the page views it as accumulated and the history behind it as well as all the above reasons, this wiki page his worthy to stay. wildfox —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.213.241.35 (talk) 02:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
• Do Not Delete* EWCF has been known as a legendary thing within a measly 8 Months. Remember when Wikipedia began where articles would be a quick description? The site has been a phenomenom like Shoop Da Whoop or WWE. That is why we should keep it Mechajalacen
• Delete Non notable website, just posting its information here as an advertisement. Kris Classic 18:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete This is not advertisement, this is a big hit with the fans. Just let it get a few months and then your thoughts will change. Tonza — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.83.43.73 (talk • contribs)
• Delete per nomination. Non-notable. RobJ1981 19:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete NN site. To all the anon IP's, this is not a vote, it's a discussion. TJ Spyke 21:42, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Notable Site SVR-MAN
• Do Not Delete Notable site Darkfire
• Do Not Delete Notable site because EWCF has been basically the equivilant to youtube. Shorty
  • Comment The equivilant to Youtube? Wow, I am surprised a website most of us have never heard of before is worth millions of dollars. Kris Classic 23:32, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete Because EWCF is the best. Dylan79(EWCF Fourms)
  • Coment A fan saying it is the best is not a good reason to keep it. Kris Classic 00:13, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Not Delete For Goodness sakes, EWCF has alot of people viewing it each day. Plus today, their was a crap load of episode information added. Teyro Law
• Do Not Delete EWCF is Notable. JT Jordan
• Do Not Delete EWCF is Notable James Jones
• Do Not Delete EWCF is Notable Ace "EWCF Fan" Indigo
• Do Not Delete EWCF is Notable Tyshawn Govan
• Do Not Delete EWCF is a site that at least has been having more page views than ECWF. Kelvin Dangelo

• Note: The do not delete vote stacking posts are by 71.83.43.73 (talk · contribs) –– Lid^(Talk) 00:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any proof of notability? A lot of pages get many views, but that doesn't mean that they deserve or need an entry on Wiki. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kris Classic (talk • contribs).

• Comment Yes they do
• Comment Plus, I am *Adding information to it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.83.43.73 (talk • contribs).
  • Comment You can add all the information to it that you want, it still doesn't make in notable.Kris Classic 20:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Addhoc 14:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless sourced per above searches. Addhoc 14:53, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any random kid could come along and make a website based on a game. No real sort of "organisation". There is no value in the content whatsoever. All the content consists of here is listings of what happens on each and every individual episode of "EWCF Carnage" - which has already been stated as unworthy content on the WWE Raw page. --SteelersFan UK06 17:30, 8 February 2007 (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.