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. postdlf (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tek9

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Run-of-the-mill web forum for Call of Duty 4 fans. Fails WP:GNG due to the lack of significant, external coverage. The article is also totally spammy, and has been tagged as failing GNG for 2 years, near enough. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:27, 16 July 2013 (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) 16:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:22, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails the GNG. All of the sources in the article originate to the website itself, or come from non-notable, non-RS websites. Seems more like self-promotion for a fansite... Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:33, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:WEB. Web forums (and similar) tend not to be notable and are rarely kept, and I don't see this being an exception. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:41, 23 July 2013 (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.