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. Consensus in this discussion is that the article fails both the general notability guideline, and the subguideline for web based content. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:08, 18 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PHWOnline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Article does not say why it is notable. Its only sources are a website checker and a dead link to the website itself. In addition, the article's history leads me to believe that it was created by someone affiliated with the site for the purpose of advertisement. 8ty3hree (talk) 02:12, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2012 November 11. Snotbot  t • c »  02:25, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing supporting the notability of the subject, PHWOnline. There's a few articles that support the notability of their product, Apostasy Zero, but if an article was created for the comic I don't think any of the content from PHWOnline would be used. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a website not passing WP:GNG at this time -- no reliable, secondary in-depth sources present or found. This 1UP interview looks good for Apostasy Zero material, but it's semi-primary, not the topic and doesn't establish notability. The reliable links from previous AfDs are about the site's products, not the site, so those don't help GNG either. Original kept AfDs links are not reliable and hardly in-depth. Since nothing is reliably sourced, I doubt anything can be used for potential Apostasy Zero article, so no merge. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:05, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't see why we have to disturb a 3-year old page... Longbyte1 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:WEBCRIT: "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."; "...has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:10, 18 November 2012 (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.