Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/GirlChat

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. Sjakkalle (Check!) 10:53, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GirlChat

This can get ugly fast, so realize my nominating this is based only on the fact that I don't think it meets WP:WEB's guidelines for inclusion of an article about a website. The article does not assert that this website has been given non-trivial media coverage, and I can't find any evidence that it has been mentioned except in passing (e.g. [1]) --W.marsh 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Since it seems like every site Google brings up on this is a kiddie-porn site, and I don't need the FBI or the NSA kicking in my door, I'm voting delete on the basis that it is not verifiable. If it was more notable, I should be able to find more info on it some other way. Kafziel 21:57, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  Verifiable? // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  Say the website goes down... we might have the Google cache or archive.org, but other than that... there's really nothing left, and those are far from 100% reliable. WP:V is more about the idea that an article's claims and facts have "already been published by a reputable publisher", the simple "I can see it now so it's verifiable" argument could apply to any website... or to the fire hydrant outside my house. There need to be good sources for something to be verifiable... that doesn't seem to be the case here (but that's open to debate, hence this AfD). --W.marsh 23:11, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- Apparent advertisement, no claim to notability in the article. Really seems to only exist to link to the page. If I use my imagination really hard I can imagine some notable page on one subject or another mentioning this or a similar message board, but an article on GirlChat really offers nothing. Perhaps a google test wouldn't do so well as girlchat could refer to more than one thing related to pedophiliaLotusduck 21:59, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Obvious advertisement to pornagraphic site. An encyclopedia should not be a list of third party web sites. Watercolour 22:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  GirlChat is not a "pornographic site." // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, not notable enough for inclusion; article was probably made just to antecedent AFD. // paroxysm (n) 22:56, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. - NONCENSORED Popeye 23:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(FWIW NONCENSORED Popeye has been blocked indefinately as an egregious troll.) Herostratus 12:59, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - Is seems notable and the article is well written I guess. No spelling errors and goes straight to the point. -- Femmina 23:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - Concise and factual; other articles regarding websites are abundant; expansion on this article is a plus but surely not necessary. Anagram 23:55, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

  Are any of the abundant websites listed less notable than this one and have those survived AFD? Lotusduck 00:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  Yes. Anagram 01:57, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

  Pretty amazing how User:Anagram found this page, having never made a single other edit on Wikipedia before. Very impressive. Kafziel 04:41, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete- not a notable site. Phantasmo 01:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The GNAA formally supports this wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.4.103.85 (talk • contribs)
• Delete fails to meet WP:WEB criteria. --Terence Ong 03:47, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB guidelines. — TheKMan^talk 03:51, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. Stifle 01:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. No notability is asserted, hardly more than an external link... this could be a speedy. All keep votes so far seem to be GNAA members. -- Curps 02:15, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, nn. -Sean Curtin 02:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• No evidence of notability, has an Alexa rank of 734,205. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 15:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. not-notable pedocruft isnt needed or wanted here. incog 00:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:WEB Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 18:15, 26 January 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.