Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tangst

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. -- ( drini's page ☎ ) 03:35, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tangst

Non-notable blog; Alexa Traffic Rank is over 3 million (3,027,360). --King of All the Franks 19:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It is a highly notable blog in a variety of circles. Do I need to explain why the Alexa Traffic Rank is worthless, or can the esteemed editors of Wikipedia determine that for themselves? 71.65.223.142 20:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'll let others contribute to this discussion. I wouldn't go so far as to act unilaterally. --King of All the Franks 20:15, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:WEB. The point here is that there is insufficient information provided by other parties, that is, other than the blog itself. For example, nobody appeared to care to link to this blog [1] nor to talk about it [2]. It may become more notable in the future, but for now there shouldn't be an encyclopedia article about it. - Liberatore(T) 20:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep The blog itself is only a half year old and doesn't actively advertise its presence since its a student-run community. However, the blog records 300-400 hits daily, and encompasses a large quantity of visitors from different geographic regions of the United States. From what I've seen, the article is worth keeping, due the the noteability the site receives in certain high school circles. And to Liberatore: you incorrectly cited Google for showing linked page statistics. You showed only a search of cached pages within the site. Here's the link you probably meant. Raleighwikiauthor 20:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)Article author with 48 Wikipedia edits, none unrelated to the article. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment; yes, that was the link I meant. Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:16, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but, maybe this article should be marked as a stub, or have a request for additional information placed on it? I think its a good history and description for the community it portrays, but it seems the complaint is primarily centered on a lack of neutrality or quantity of information. If this is the case, there are less drastic means that could be used, such as a "stub" marking or "neutrality" notice. 71.65.223.142 21:09, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep but, like the others have said, as a stub. The blog is 5 months old. After a rocky start with one administrator doing everything, it's experienced increased growth in the past two months. Because it's community based, the growth stops and starts depending on current events in those areas. Obviously, neutrality is an issue. I'd bet that the creator of the article is an ardent fan of the site. By the way, there are a couple of sites that link to the blog, it's just that there aren't any notable sites that link to it. KnightHawk 22:23, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

23 edits to Wikipedia, all but 3 to the article in question. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and Liberatore; currently nn. --Muchness 22:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as currently failing WP:WEB policy. You guys are more than welcome to come back when the blog gains some widespread community attention, and I personally appreciate that you guys are being calm in your reasoning, and not coming in here screaming "ALL HEIL THE ALLMITY TANGST!!!1!1!! Tose fools demanding the deletion of our leet-foo article will rot in hell!!" like some blogger communities and forum groups do when their article ends up here. -- Saberwyn - The Zoids Expansion Project 00:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Withdrawing from the discussion, and apologising for using a mildly-stardardised template, which I have also removed. I was in the wrong to do so after reading the discussion up until the time I added the template, and noted directly above in my comments that the members of the tangst community posting here had not behaved as most people whose favourite site appears here for deletion would, and attempted to compliment them on their calm behaviour and well-though out reasonings. I was wrong. I am sorry. -- Saberwyn.

I think we can all agree that deleting tangst would be, to quote Oscar Wilde "gay as fuck." Also, I have it on good authority that Bush is a frequent contributor (username: rootinshootintexan)—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.221.13.236 (talk • contribs) 02:55, 18 January 2006

• Delete --NaconKantari 02:55, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and wikipedia is not self promotion. --W.marsh 04:22, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and W.marsh. Also the redirects Tangster, Tangsters, Tangsting, and Tangsty need to go, too. And throw in The Walls Have Eyes while you're at it. --Calton | Talk 04:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep you need to keep this. a lot of teenagers (myself included) need a place to vent anonymously, and the Tangst site linked from this article is the perfect place for it. a lot of the Tangsters will be really upset with you if this is deleted. please, it won't hurt anything to keep it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.176.200 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 January 2006

• You know someone is scraping bottom when reduced to arguing, "What's the harm in keeping an article?" --Calton | Talk 21:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep personally, I agree. there are other articles within wikipedia, some referenced from this article, that discuss sites with a near-identical intent. also as noted earlier, it is growing very rapidly in most recent weeks. if anything, keep it as a stub, or an "ongoing update" current event-type thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.223.142 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 January 2006

• Comment Um, wow. The lines are rather clear. Per policy, it seems pretty obvious that it shouldn't be an article, it doesn't met notability standards. Stub status I'm not that sure about. As the creator of the site (not the article), I'm starting to not care about the outcome, but I'm still terribly biased so I'm going to refrain from declaring. I just ask that Calton stop taking potshots at the supporters (mentioning how many edits someone does or doesn't have isn't valid - there are numerous ways to make thousands of edits without being accredited any, like getting a new computer, not bothering to get a Wiki account, or using different computers at the library). Looking at the history of this discussion, he tried to delete something, which I think isn't allowed per Wikipedia deletion policy. Am I right about that? I'm sorry if this is causing too much trouble. -- Heather Sit 06:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

• A QUICK NOTE

It looks like the article is pretty well gone, but just so I have my two cents: Apparently the editor who splashed the notice at the top of this discussion did not read the link that they referenced . If you read the post on the Tangst blog, and discussion that followed, you'll notice that it was well thought out, and not a call to "stuff the ballot box," as you so eloquently put it.

That's ok. Its the same deal with the Wikipedia editor who posted the links earlier about the site's popularity. They simply didn't bother check their source.

But hey, its Wikipedia, nobody has to have a credible source, right?

-- 71.65.223.142 20:15, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I thought this wasn't a vote Stifle. Are you proposing to change our minds with your comment in the discussion edits history? Regardless, if you actually bothered to read the information pertaining to this discussion, you would have realized no one is calling for a stuffing of any ballot box, and that you're simply perpetuating a false stereotype. I do, however, appreciate the threats you made to my posted IP address. Very much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.223.142 (talk • contribs)

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.