Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenage wildlife forum (2nd nomination)

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. - Mailer Diablo 11:55, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage wildlife forum (2nd nomination)

I know the first nomination reached a no conensus, but this is cruft at it's absolute worst. It's a page about a message board to a site that only has an alexa rating of 212,784. The site it is hosted on is barely notable, if at all, so why would a forum be? Giant onehead 02:25, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

First AFD here - Yomangani^talk 10:21, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non notable forum --Guinnog 02:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blathery webcruft. Opabinia regalis 03:51, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:CRUFT and nom. --Supermath 03:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above.UberCryxic 04:34, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an attack on the site that's persisted since its creation in January: "The lax restrictions of the forum and the length of its existence have attracted some of the most terrifying message board personae to have ever surfed the web..." Zetawoof^(ζ) 05:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It probably provides enough useful info to be included in the External links section of David Bowie, but this is another clear example fansites (see former edit in Teenage Wildlife) do not usually deserve their own article. Info provided is too granular and the important stuff isn't verifiable. Links section is too spammy. Mgm|^(talk) 09:02, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. MER-C 09:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as advertising. JIP | Talk 09:52, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete So how did the first AfD have no consensus if the second is all deletes. Fancruft. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 10:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above... puzzled as to how this go through an AfD. —dustmite 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep with multiple nontrivial third-party references (see external links) and over 10,000 registered users. —dustmite 15:38, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, only trivial or non-reliable third-party references. Recury 19:49, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I disagree with this, as the site has been noted in at least two major biographies of Bowie. —dustmite 03:08, 27 September 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.