| Revision as of 12:19, 14 August 2005 editNandesuka (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users13,890 edits →[]← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:53, 14 August 2005 edit undoLomedae (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users790 editsm →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
| * '''Delete.''' Comparatively well written but very pointless, as noted.] 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | * '''Delete.''' Comparatively well written but very pointless, as noted.] 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Delete''', per Gtrmp. ] 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''', per Gtrmp. ] 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC) | ||
| * '''Weak keep''' Whilst I personally don't see the point as per ], the best point is made by ]. --] 12:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 12:53, 14 August 2005
Harry Potter RPGs
Do we really need an article on every kind of message board role-playing game or collaborative fan fiction project? Not notable outside of their own communities. Delete. -Sean Curtin 05:45, August 14, 2005 (UTC)
- Delete fanfic, collaborative or otherwise. Heh...I just nominated the same thing in my fandom for VFD just now, too. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:41, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, individual pieces of fanfic may not be notable, but whole genres of it are. Kappa 08:14, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. We most certainly do not need more Harry Potter articles. / Peter 10:26, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Comparatively well written but very pointless, as noted.Sandstein 11:01, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, per Gtrmp. Nandesuka 12:19, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
- Weak keep Whilst I personally don't see the point as per Peter, the best point is made by Kappa. --Lomedae 12:53, August 14, 2005 (UTC)