Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/400,000 Faces

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, not to question the site's motives, only it's notability as a Wikipedia article. Fails WP:WEB criterion. --May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 12:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 400,000 Faces

400,000 Faces (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Facebook groups, even large ones, are not notable. The references provided are not from reliable sources. DWaterson 10:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. MER-C 10:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• Keep The article is well-sourced, and fairly well written. Given the frequency of AfD noms for list and organisation-related articles, I wonder if a review is needed about the notability of user "groups" in general. If millions of people are part of a group, does that not at least give a group notoriety? While every group with 1,000,000 members may not deserve an article, neither do the many lists and collections of loosely associated articles. I think that a policy page dealing strictly with creation of "list" and "collection" style articles may be necessary, to reduce the number of AfD nominations produced daily.--Lostcause365 00:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

• Strong Keep "any and all facebook groups, myspace groups, yahoo groups, friendster groups, msn groups, orkut groups, etc" - this is nonsense. Any group that is notable should of course be kept, simply because something comes from a social website does not in any way mean it is of 'less value' than a non-social website. This is an obvious speedy keep, apart from the fact 400,000 people are in this group, there are a number of google results, proving that it is notable. Thedreamdied 14:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - This clearly doesn't fall under any of the criteria for speedy keeping. DWaterson 15:40, 23 March 2007 (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.