Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teenage wildlife forum

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 of the debate was No consensus. Deathphoenix 14:45, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teenage wildlife forum

Fails WP:WEB. Article about a web forum that does not cite external, verifiable third-party sources demonstrating its notability. Nominator votes delete. Zunaid 13:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete as per nom. --Sleepyhead 13:52, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - not notable enough. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 17:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)(changed vote to keep)
  • Keep - If such little-known items as Quislet and Jr. Gone Wild deserve Wikipedia pages, why not Teenage Wildlife? There are 805 hits on Google for "Jr. Gone Wild" and 15,900 for"'teenage wildlife' forum."
  • Keep - Teenage Wildlife is one of the largest and oldest music communities on the internet. Verifiable third-party sources that demonstrate its notability are now cited in the External links section. - Fegchanges 17:30, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Those 3rd party sources are listed under "Mentions of Teenage Wildlife in the online Bowie fandom". Online fandom does not IMHO demonstrate notability. What you have is an online fan forum being referenced by online fansites. Zunaid 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep per Fegchanges - also, I see a lot of work has been put in to this article, it's over 1,800 words long. As there is some assertation of notability, it's a keep. If it were like 50 words long, then it may have been a delete; as there is actually something to say, let's say it. --Latinus (talk (el:)) 08:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - the website is noted in a number of notable Bowie biographies, including Nicholas Pegg's Complete David Bowie and David Buckley's Strange fascination.
  • Comment Article now has a section titled "notability", oh gosh, cleanup for sure! But well, I can't really go DEL NN anymore either then, can I? Kim Bruning 10:12, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment - I'd like to see people waiting to see what becomes of this article. Renaming it to the correct capitalisation and cleaning it up are in order, but it's got some potential, at least. Rob Church (talk) 10:15, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as non-notable, see results 1-10 of 59 for "teenage wildlife forum" less specific searches yield false positives, as "Teenage Wildlife" is the name of a much more notable David Bowie song [1]. — FREAK OF NURxTURE (TALK) 10:20, Feb. 6, 2006
    • You should be voting based on the content of the article and the reliability of the third party sources/links, not on the amount of google hits. —Fegchanges 14:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • You could also try googling "Teenage Wildlife messageboard" or "TW messageboard" or any other combination of "TW" forum" "messageboard" and so on. There's not a consistent way to refer to it, so you can't get an accurate Google count.
  • Weak Keep per our guidelines it passes since it has 12,587 Registered Users.  ALKIVAR™ 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The guidelines have been slightly reworded, but even on your point the old guideline said: A forum of 5,000 members that has had an impact beyond its own community. The second half of that sentence is what gets most forums here to AfD in the first place. Zunaid 12:59, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Full to the rafters with cruft, but that beside the point. The actual issue is verification. The Nicholas Pegg link doesn't mention this forum, an my mole-vision can't confirm anything from the tiny writing. Ditto with the David Buckley link. This doesn't mean that I don't believe, just that the evidence given doesn't allow me to easily decide. There's nothing else in the article like a reliable source. I am unable to discern from the above if the "keep" recomendations above are based upon the (possibly spurious) claims regarding the biography or if they've actually seen the printed works. I'd also note that the reason guidelines at WP:WEB now no longer mention number of registered users, since there is no way to tell if a website is reporting those facts (about itself) accurately. Always happy to have more information presented.
    brenneman(t)(c) 13:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
    Fegchanges has provided a link to a higher resolution scan of the book along with a note that the forum is mentioned explicitly on the cover. Sadly, I'm unable to access the link! But I see no reason to penalise this article for my firewall, nor any reason to doubt the good faith of this contributor. Changing to abstain. - brenneman(t)(c) 02:13, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no mention outside of a few fan sites. Non-notable. —ERcheck @ 06:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
    • The following verifiable third-party sources are not fan sites -
    1. Teenage Wildlife at the Open Directory Project (DMOZ) Teenage Wildlife is in 4 seperate catagories at DMOZ
    2. Metroactive Central A reference to Teenage Wildlifes notability outside strict online fandom.
    3. BBC Stuart Maconle's Critical List At the bottom of the page the BBC say 'Comprehensive fan site, with lyrics, pictures and discography'
    4. SearchCeleb a general information site that links to Teenage Wildlife.
    5. Who2? a general information site that links to Teenage Wildlife.
    6. Scan of The Complete David Bowie The cover of notable Bowie biography The Complete David Bowie - author Nicholas Pegg, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife (www.teenagewildlife.com)
    7. Scan from Strange Fascination - author David Buckley, showing a mention of Teenage Wildlife
  • Keep. Widely known as a premier Bowie site based on the references here and elsewhere. Article needs to concentrate more on the site than the posters. -- JJay 01:56, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep The article has become massively crufted up with all the stuff needed to defend notability, hopefully some of that can be dialed back, or moved to the talk page or a subpage of it, once this article survives AfD as it should, because it IS notable. Multimedia events, mentions in books, quotes from the star, number of users and on and on and on... you'd have to be a spider from mars to want to delete this. ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 8 February 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.