Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TeenSpot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 04:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] TeenSpot

TeenSpot (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Article is written more like an advertisement, and does not "describe the site in an encyclopedic manner, offering detail on a website's achievements, impact or historical significance." Barely asserts any notability, aside from listing sourced traffic stats. Also has only trivial mentions in articles, often just listing the site along with other social networks. -- pb30<talk> 18:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Also nominating:

2005 TS Top 100 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
  • Keep It has a mention on Dateline and a controversy with another site, I think it could show merit. Let this AfD stand as a warning to the articles editors, if it's in the same shape in a month I don't think it'll survive another AfD. Padillah (talk) 19:59, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
WP:WEB requires far more than a mention, it requires significant coverage. A controversy with another site means nothing unless that has been covered in significant detail by a reliable source.--Crossmr (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
That goes for both articles, by the way - the second nom could probably be deleted per WP:SPEEDY (A7). --DachannienTalkContrib 09:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep It has been mentioned on Dateline NBC and ITN News, and is linked to by a number of articles for albums by bands. If the editors of those articles think the site's review is notable, I think then the site itself must have some notoriety. It could definitely use some rewrite and editing on its bulk description/list section. When making the article, I was hoping that someone with more editing experience would have taken the reigns on making the article's content more encyclopedic. Smeggysmeg (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • A recent edit should alleviate some of your concerns regarding its style. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete This dateline "mention" is just that a mention. WP:WEB requires significant coverage. Other wikipedian editors can't establish notability. the guidelines are very clear on what establishes notability and I don't see any of it here.--Crossmr (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article should be kept because the website has a large user base, and becuase it is part of many ongoing controversies regarding child safety online. I don't see how it is any less relevant than the article on Myspace or Bebo. Bms0076 (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

2005 TS Top 100

  • Delete Insignificant forum glory. Smeggysmeg (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Note My opinion that this second article should be deleted was registered above, but I'm re-mentioning it here for clarity's sake. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:18, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks! Redfarmer (talk) 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Lack of notability per mentioned above. Earthbendingmaster 01:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


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.