Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TigerGardens

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 of the debate was Delete. --Fang Aili ^說嗎? 04:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TigerGardens

Article about a seemingly non-notable website. Has been speedily deleted three times previously, the last of which by myself as recreation of deleted content, and a failure to establish notability. However, by request [1] of the page's latest contributor I have restored the page (and its edit history) and brought the deletion discussion here. I would vote to delete, since it fails to establish notability per WP:WEB. _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Certainly seems to fail WP:WEB. Pretty hard to find much in the way of relevant GHits. Unable to Alexa, since it's hosted on a free webhost (20m.com), but the fact that it's on a free webhost says a lot. The webmaster hopes to get a real domain name someday? Kind of says it all. Fan1967 20:22, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep First of all, thank you UkPaolo for recreating the page and bringing it here instead for discussion. I feel that, although the site discussed on the TigerGardens wiki page may not be notable to the wider world, it does receive sufficient attention and visits to justify the inclusion of a page about it on Wikipedia. The site itself is quite popular with students at schools in Buckinghamshire, UK (for the games and other resources) and I think that it certainly cannot be a bad thing to have too much information and knowledge on Wikipedia, although admittedly I can see how some people may consider TigerGardens to be too trivial and insignificant to deserve a mention on Wikipedia. However, in WP:WEB under 'Criteria for web content' the third point states "The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster" and I can tell you that TigerGardens has featured on parts of the online publisher MySpace as well as other websites and publishers (such as other smaller, independent websites and online journals). I hope this all justifies allowing the page TigerGardens to remain on Wikipedia. --Tramster 20:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: anyone can post anything on MySpace, it's not that kind of "online publisher" the criteria are referring to... _└^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 20:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per Fan1967. -- Hirudo 04:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Hosted on a free webhost. The WP:WEB guideline that Tramster referred to is intended to refer to publications that are not made by or initiated from the site itself. Stifle (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Sorry, MySpace doesn't count as "publishing". With regret, the site discussed just isn't notable enough. — Estarriol ^talk 13:57, 30 April 2006 (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.