Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darkstarlings


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 08:29, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Darkstarlings
"a underground gothic alternative Social community". Doesn't have an Alexa rank but I think that if it did, it would be equivalent to a pretty nice after-tax salary. In any event, article is promotional and seems to fail WP:WEB. Daniel Case 03:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I typed the article and it wasn't meant to be promotional. I simply have a darkstarlings and came here looking for more info, When I didn't find any I typed an article on it. Also, What would be my motive to promote it? I don't own it or are getting any profits, So therefore it'd be pointless for me to promote it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
 * Please don't delete the section head next time next time. Whether you gain anything or not is immaterial (ahem). The text sounds sort of like an ad (see our growing site!).
 * But the real issue is that it doesn't meet Wikipedia's notability standards for websites ... see link in nomination. Daniel Case 04:37, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that :-/
 * But really I don't think it should be deleted. I know it kinda seems like an ad but I just thought Darkstarlings needed a Wikipedia, and honestly I couldn't gain from it at all so why would I promote it? Not much motives come to mind. But I'm sorry if I typed it wrong or made it seem like an ad. But please don't delete it. Theres really no reason to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: User's first and only edits. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Apology accepted. WP:WEB. See above again. It doesn't look like a notable website. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Daniel Case 04:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well myspace has one and Darkstarlings has about 50,000 members so I thought I'd give it a wikipedia. Seems fair its been up for 12 years and has 50,000 members. It deserves it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jake12 (talk • contribs)
 * Membership counts mean nothing here as far as websites are concerned. Has it made the news? Is it run by someone notable? Does it generate content used by other sites? Basically, those are the three WP:WEB tests, and nothing to support any one of them has been offered here. Daniel Case 15:46, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Deserve ain't got nothing to do with it. Delete, fails WP:WEB. Danny Lilithborne 05:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP the boys right. Why should we favor Myspace? Keep the article. Plus it passes 99% of the Wikipedia standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeachPrincess (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 05:26:52
 * Comment: User's first and only edit. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I say KEEP as well. The article needs to be rewritten ASAP (notice the article now). Jeff and Kyle, no one knows who that is. MySpace shouldn't be favored, but the article needs rewritten.--Dess 05:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP. I have A ds. And kyle and jeff are legnds!! I LOVE THEM. I'M A DORK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.212.32.233 (talk • contribs) 2006-07-25 05:41:47
 * Again, user's first and only edit. Daniel Case 15:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: User:69.212.32.233 also vandalized this page a couple of hours ago. Not helpful. Daniel Case 16:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, fails WP:WEB; Alexa of 69,647; some Google presence but few links that aren't from blogs, forums, or sites that otherwise do not pass WP:RS. Willing to reconsider if new evidence is provided here. -- Kinu t /c  05:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't meet WP:WEB, unless published about includes security vunerabilities at well-known sites recoding these. -- Koffieyahoo 05:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: "Underground" and "alternative" more or less preclude "notable."  If it's way up in the rankings, it's not underground or alternative, and if it's underground and alternative, it can't be way up in the rankings.  That aside, the article is pretty much non-existant, with another predicate nominative and then "click here."  That amounts to advertising with one declarative sentence prior.  (Oh, and it's still small compared to MySpace but not small...whatever that means.)  Wikipedia is not a web guide, dating guide, advertising medium, or news paper.  It is supposed to be an encyclopedia.  Geogre 13:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - anything that draws out the socks can not be a good thing. bd2412  T 14:08, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom... it's certainly not ranked anywhere near my after-tax salary!! =P Failure of WP:WEB and possible self-promotion... Srose (talk)  16:49, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. No harm in it. Trollderella 17:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: No harm is not a valid reason for keeping a page. Those voting to keep should please take the effort to explain which of the inclusion criteria are met. -- Kinu t /c  18:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete It's smaller than myspace, and we don't even give myspace sites an entry. -Royalguard11Talk 17:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete As above Logicaldisaster 23:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to Mansonite/mallgoth. JChap (talk • contribs) 04:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tychocat 11:07, 26 July 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.