Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boxed Thoughts

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. TigerShark 01:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Boxed Thoughts

Boxed Thoughts (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Looks almost like spam for this website. I was tempted to delete it for being a non-notable website, but the assertion that it was featured on a TV show could provide some notability for it. It does, despite that, seem pretty non-notable and unverifiable, though. Metros232 18:56, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. I'll be generous and count the TV show as one external source, but I've waded through 8 pages of google results and everything is a blog. Pity because it's more interesting than 99% of the websites that turn up on AfD but I'm not going to resort to WP:ILIKEIT. Demiurge 19:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep This Article is in it's early stages. I'm still working on creating more content which will link it to it's sources better aswell as adding a more in-depth history section among controversy, and the social experiment that has been based off this website. This is only a day old and i would very much appreciate a chance to prove this can be a suitable article. I still have to change the context to be in the Third Person. The article will also be mentioning the use of BT for therapeutic uses (but also mention that this is a claim by users, which has *yet* to undergo scientific review). BT may be the base for a Standford social experiment on the effects of expressive writing. I think this wiki is worth while and will expand and prove itself. Thank You. YeahWho 02:07, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Website seems non-notable; only external reference is one TV show comment; digg.com entry (external link from the article) has only had 129 diggs in 579 days (compare with any current news article racking up hundreds in just a few hours). I agree that the idea seems cool, but let's wait until there are more independent references for it to endorse it. -- dockingmantalk 06:25, 2 December 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.