Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Websites. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting. Anyone can help maintain the list on this page.

Adding a new AfD discussion

Adding an AfD to this page does not add it to the main page at WP:AFD. Similarly, removing an AfD from this page does not remove it from the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page before adding it to this page. To add a discussion to this page, follow these steps:

Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. Also, indicate the title of the article in the edit summary as it is particularly helpful to add a link to the article in the edit summary. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
You should also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Websites|~~~~}} to it, which will inform editors that it has been listed here. You may place this tag above or below the nomination statement or at the end of the discussion thread.

There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.

Removing a closed AfD discussion

Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.

Other types of discussions

You can also add and remove other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Websites. For the other XfD's, the process is the same as AfD (except {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/PageName}} is used for MFD and {{transclude xfd}} for the rest). For PRODs, adding a link with {{prodded}} will suffice.

Further information

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.

This list also includes a sublist or sublists of deletions related to webcomics and fora..Suggested inclusion guidelines for this topic area can be found at WP:WEB.

Archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at:

WikiProject Deletion sorting/Websites/archive

Purge page cache

watch

Websites

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 keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:49, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Flashcard Exchange

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

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Carlh (talk) 04:11, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough to meet WP:WEB. There is no "historic significance" here. Many similar sites exist: none with Wikipedia pages. A mention that online flashcards and sites exist is already included in the main Flashcards page. That is enough. Carlh (talk) 03:13, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Historic significance" is not the barometer for inclusion. The notability guideline is.
Please explain why you contacted User:Onebravemonkey and User:LinguistAtLarge, neither of whom have been involved with this article. Cunard (talk) 05:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WEB is the guideline for inclusion of a website. "Notable and of historical significance" is a quote from the WP:WEB header. I believe the spirit of WP:WEB is not met in this case. You believe the opposite. Hopefully consensus will be reached here and we'll both live with the result. Carlh (talk) 15:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... some sort of explanation would be useful. one brave monkey 09:41, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, hold on. It was this, wasn't it? Both myself and Linguist !voted delete... have the other editors (those who !voted keep) been contacted? There is a fine line between notifying interested parties and canvassing, but I'm pretty sure which side of it you are at the moment... one brave monkey 09:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe you recall, almost all of the Keep voters were sockpuppets made solely to attempt to stop Crammage from being deleted. You can see warnings made by C.Fred on several talk pages (examples: User talk:76.14.82.5 User talk:Homeboyfrisco) and by yourself here User talk:Thomasjnewsome. Since the Crammage article was deleted I don't think any of them are ever coming back. I became involved in the Crammage AfD because User_talk:58.3.182.104 left a note on my talk page. But if I think back it was more appropriate as I had indeed reverted a spammy edit to the Supermemo page made by one of the Crammage sockpuppets. I'm no AfD expert. I did not mean to break any rules. Not a mistake I will repeat. I barely managed to make the AfD :). I usually participate when others take the lead. Here is "my side": I have a few interests on Wiki that I monitor every few months one is Flashcards, E-learning, and Spaced Repetition- a subject which unfortunately attracts a lot of adverts. I've participated from the side mostly (or via speedys) on Bettermemo, IFlipr, MemorizeIt, Mental Case, and StudyProf. Fought the good fight and lost on Winflash and Anki. I have nothing in particular against Flashcard Exchange and in this case I don't think Cunard is at all acting in bad faith or indeed has anything to do with the website. We just have an everyday disagreement over notability. My goal is to keep the E-learning/flashcard related articles relatively clean. I think they are ok now and part of the reason is that individual sites and programs are generally kept off. Of course I'm willing to live with the consensus. --Carlh (talk) 15:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. See this review from Education World and nontrivial coverage from TUAW, which is published by AOL. Cunard (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to argue these are trivial sources. The first is an non-notable website with what is pretty much a directory listing and the second is a review about another product altogether (Mental case) not this website. Carlh (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Education World is a reliable source and their reviews are written and edited by their staff (see their about page for more information). The editorial analysis in this source—"The site is simply designed and intuitive to use"—makes it more than a directory listing. (While the second source reviews another product, it provides significant coverage about Flashcard Exchange. (The general notability guideline defines "significant coverage" as "more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material".) This website is marginally notable but has enough coverage in reliable sources for me to support retention. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope it's okay that I'm chiming in. I'm not practiced at the linking to Wikipedia sources as footnotes for debate here, and my position is very simply a personal one: I went looking for information myself, and didn't find it here. I like to learn the history about websites that I come across and become interested in, and I have always considered Wikipedia as a trustworthy site where I can find relevant information about contemporary topics without searching for an hour on Google. I recognize that my assumption that this will help other users is based solely on my own usage model. I did spend quite a bit of time reading the guidelines for contribution and made a sincere effort to adhere to them, but a is the case with moderating most user-generated content, the guidelines mainly serve as an outline for subjective interpretation. I value the guidance I've received since publishing, and I'm learning a lot as I go. :-) Thanks so much for your input and discussion! Katieshy (talk) 03:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's perfectly okay for you to chime in. You can learn more about how to link to sources at Wikipedia:Linking#External links section. Cunard (talk) 00:22, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cunard! :-) It's not so much the linking part but the awareness of the applicable Wikipedia-guideline articles in order to reference. ;-) (UTC)Katieshy 08:32, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:26, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, precisely per Cunard, who I think has refuted the nomination.—S Marshall T/C 15:33, 11 December 2010 (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.

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. Tone 11:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Masters of Media

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

This is a blog run as part of one particular class in a degree program. My speedy on it was declined. It is possible for academic blogs or mailing lists to be notable, but the claim in the article "recognized as among the leading academic blogs on the subject of digital culture " needs some evidence.; I see none, and in any events a claim to be "one of" the important blogs in a field is on the vague side; a substantiated claim to be the most important might possibly be meaningful. The wording in the article appears academic promotional jargon, for example: "a basis for in-depth perspectives in our culture" . It was objected that the person running the blog is notable, but that does not make every class project of his notable also. (One of his own projects, Nettime, is notable--see that article for the sort of evidence needed.) DGG ( talk ) 23:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete By all means, add the blog with a note to Geert Lovinck's bio, but the article itself is on three topics, and there's nothing referenced about the blog itself being notable. Yakushima (talk) 11:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 07:47, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable website Carlh (talk) 04:26, 26 November 2010 (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.

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 keep. To say the least, there is no consensus for deletion, but it looks like the arguments for retention seemed to have outweighed the deletion arguments here. –MuZemike 19:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dudesnude

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

Non-notable website lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:WEB. ttonyb (talk) 16:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep but its meets WP:N and is well sourced, its one of the largest gay dating/hookup/networking websites in the world, with hundreds of thousands of members, compare with Adam4adam or Manhunt.net. Seems to have been nominated in bad faith by a user who tried to speedy delete it but what rebuked. Hemanetwork (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I do not see how the article meets WP:WEB or WP:N. The article is not well sourced. The sources are only brief mentions of the site that may prove its existence, but are not adequate secondary sources. The existence of the other article has no bearing on this article as each article must stand on its own merits. The number of members it has also does not have a bearing on notability - neither WP:BIO or WP:N use this criteria to establish notability.

Concerning your statement about "bad faith", I suggest you read WP:AGF and the criteria differences and processes associated with WP:CSD and WP:AfD before you again incorrectly accuse some of of bad faith. ttonyb (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

well the lack of dialogue until now didn't come off too well...

Delete — Only two of the references cited in the article have the potential of being reliable sources about the article subject itself, the University of Melbourne source and the University of Illinois source.

The purpose of the UM paper (which does not appear to have been peer-reviewed) was to "produce an exhaustive network map of Victorian gay men’s communities, characterising the groupings of gay men and the relationships that exist between groups" (from Executive Summary, p. 7, in part 1 of the study, available here), in which Dudesnude is mentioned and demographically analyzed as one of the several dozen groups of gay men included in the study through which men network; its importance or significance is not specifically discussed in the study and though data is reported in the study by which its importance or significance might be evaluated it would require prohibited original research to do so here at Wikipedia.
The UI paper does appear to have been published in an academic journal, but the sole mention of Dudesnude is a single reference by a single interviewee as one Internet source that he uses, along with "Manhunt, MySpace, [and] Facebook", to meet partners, but the interviewee says that he does not use any one of the four any more than the other three.

It's clear from this that Dudesnude is popular enough to have appeared on the academic radar, but so far only as a data point. The general notability guideline says, "'Significant coverage' means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." From this, it would seem clear to me that the UI paper is not support for notability and the notability of Dudesnude is not supported by more than one reliable source even if the UM paper can — at best — be stretched to be a support for notability. I can find no other reliable sources. — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - What if it has, hundreds of thousands of subscribers?Hemanetwork (talk) 22:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – 1) Popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability; 2) there is no evidence of subscriber levels presented in the article. ttonyb (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well i'll add it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hemanetwork (talk • contribs)

Comment Using a statement in the company's website does not support the statement. What is needed is an independent source per WP:RS. Regardless, popularity is not part of the criteria for WP:WEB or any other Wikipedia based notability. ttonyb (talk) 03:02, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

added a couple more sources, anyone wanna help me search for more? i know they are out there.=)Hemanetwork (talk) 08:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a spread of cultural impact over several years which appears sufficient to justify against the GNG. The nomination refers to GHits and I find 80,700 listed in a simple Google search, it seems odd to dismiss them all as insignificant as I doubt they have been checked; such a large number of matches also raises the WP:SET argument, if this text is not kept as a stand-alone article then it ought to be merged rather than deleted on this rationale. As a side note (as this does not strongly influence a discussion on notability), the Alexa rank is 7,563 which is comparable to Gaydar (website) at 7,095. Fæ (talk) 13:46, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment – The Google numbers are notoriously wrong when first presented. A Google search of the title in quotes only lists 518 hits. One needs to go to the last page to see the following statement. "In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 518 already displayed." Again, popularity (including web ranking) has no bearing on notability. ttonyb (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - YOu yourself nominated this article because of google hits though. There are many sources now, including mentions in published works!Hemanetwork (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - As Hemanetwork noted, GHits were part of the nomination and I did say that as part of my opinion otherwise I would not have mentioned them. Should you strike this from the nomination I would be prepared to do the same for my opinion. ~~I also do not understand your point, my Google search was for '"Dudesnude.com" -wikipedia' giving 80,700 hits and I get no statement about omitted results.~~ (strike as I do understand the point after a re-reading, with my search I get 689 "most relevant" hits which does not particularly make me want to reconsider my opinion). Fæ (talk) 05:50, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that google news of substance seems to have been found just news if it's not google, what exactly makes it not notable at this point? (this is hemanetwork btw)Thisbites (talk) 09:58, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Fae. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 21:30, 25 November 2010 (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.

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 no consensus. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

İnci Sözlük

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

I'm not sure if the topic of the artitle is really the website or the dictionary (it was originally the English name, then got moved to Turkish and seems to be talking more about the site than the medical reference). But either way, appears to fail notability standards (including having long-unaddressed cleanup tags). The only thing I see is that it was the blog on which someone posted a comment first noting a possibly-notable situation involving some other notable website. Seems like the site itself is a few steps removed from actual notability in its own right. The cited ref only mentions the site itself in passing, so it's not the sort of specific in-depth reporting that WP:WEB wants. I don't know Turkish so I can't comment on the site's content or easily search for native sources about it. Note: I had to semiprotect the article to quash a long-term vandalism problem--other admins feel free to unprotect if you think anons will be able to bring the article into a viable state, and also beware if the problem spreads to this AFD. DMacks (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2010 (UTC) Correction: prot was on a related article not this one, however please still be aware of anon/SPA problems as they seem to plague here also. DMacks (talk) 06:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 23:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- It's a forum like Ekşi Sözlük. İnci Sözlük is very popular in Turkey, if there's a page for Ekşi Sözlük, we can also have a page for İnci Sözlük. Dizikaygisiz (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a WP:RS that clearly states that it is very popular? DMacks (talk) 21:09, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 05:44, 3 December 2010 (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.

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. -- Cirt (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lacuna Expanse

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

I killed a speedy tag here, but notability might not be good enough. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 05:51, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:WEB and WP:V: non-notable browser game with no references from reliable, third-party published sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:56, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:49, 19 November 2010 (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) 01:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 06:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't yet been noted by any reliable video game sources[1]. Marasmusine (talk) 15:50, 27 November 2010 (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.

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vittorio Pelosi

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

It mostly refers to the website of the person in question. The press articles are often in the local press, and some of them state that his claim to fame was "almost having his own TV programme." I seriously doubt whether mr Pelosi can be considered notable. 82.210.137.132 (talk) 15:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is on behalf of an IP in accordance with AGF; the rationale above was copied from the article talk page. I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:35, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:37, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I cannot find significant coverage about this individual and I find intentism to be a bit dubious as well. -- Whpq (talk) 17:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both. Only 2 links work & no notable coverage. Johnbod (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2010 (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.

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 keep. Tone 15:16, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fltplan.com

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

Delete. Makes some claims of notability but still not sufficient to meet WP:WEB. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 06:22, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently a website for pilots to create flight plans on. References are to Internet directories and trade publications. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a problem with listing trade publications? The^FSAviator • T 04:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has a couple of hits on gnews. Some of these are in passing, but it suggests this could be notable. (I'm not sure if all flight trade publications are on gnews, if they aren't this could be more notable.) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:27, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Article creator is a probable SPA: Mrswrite (talk · contribs) OSborn^arf_{contributionatoration} 19:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Appears to meet WP:N currently has secondary sources and gets good hit and a Google search. May require some re-write to meet WP:NPOV. Pol430 (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 09:58, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 22:38, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:N as noted above. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 02:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has been sourced and seems to be well-written. The^FSAviator • T 22:12, 7 December 2010 (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.

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

General Mayhem

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

While the article seems to be heavily referenced, almost none of the articles mention this forum at all. It's supposedly citation of its rank on big-boards.com is not true according to the website itself (it doesn't look like it ranks in the top 2000 even). The two items in the supposed "controversy" section aren't really that controversial. For the first, none of the links actually mention the forum and the second Walken one the website is only briefly mentioned as the possible originator. There really aren't any reliable sources showing this website's notability. Wickethewok (talk) 03:16, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The ranking on big-boards.com is near-accurate, it's currently (11/19/2010) fallen to #59. It's difficult to find since it's under the name General [M]ayhem, which means normal searching won't find it.ThAlEdison (talk) 18:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:52, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - ThAlEdison is right, it's on BigBoards as General [M]ayhem, and its size according to that source is sufficient to found a claim of notability even before turning to the other sources. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No, this forum's traffic totals are not sufficient to found a claim of notability before turning to other sources. That is simply inaccurate. Notability has nothing to do with web traffic as defined by any source. Notability depends upon reliable, significant coverage in independent sources, of the actual topic at hand (and not, say, the result of actions undertaken by the topic). I do not see anything like significant coverage in third-party sources on this topic. I see traffic statistics and coverage of events related to more notable topics than this one. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 09:47, 1 December 2010 (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.

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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Lovers and Friends Show

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

Notability is questionable at best. Google gives me videos, videos, some DVDs, but not much in the way of coverage. This AfD should cover Nicole Piña, as her notability is tied exclusively to this. Xavexgoem (talk) 05:26, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 07:19, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Webshow with no substantial coverage in secondary sources. Abductive (reasoning) 14:32, 30 November 2010 (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.

Website Proposed deletions

no articles proposed for deletion at this time