Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeviantArt


 * 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 Speedy Keep (non-admin closure) per WP:SK, criterion number 2. The nominator in this case does not believe that the article should be deleted. Just because an IP posts a note on the talk page of the article that he believes the article should be deleted does not obligate anyone to actually nominate the article for deletion. If the IP would like to nominate the article for deletion, then let them register a username (or, at the very least, let them actually request that someone nominate the article on their behalf, which they have not done). This article is an obvious keep, let's not waste anyone else's time. Also, this deletion nomination was not created correctly, several steps were missed. Please read WP:AFDHOWTO before attempting to create another deletion discussion. An IP user nominated DeviantArt for deletion, stating the following: "This article runs like an advertisement and there are hardly any third-party sources to back this article up. I think this article should be deleted as it is technically just promoting the website and nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.220.117.12 (talk) 03:33, 20 December 2010 (UTC)"

My opinion is keep, and quickly at that. The claim the article reads like an ad is untrue: it includes criticism. The lack of third-party sources is a fair criticism but not grounds for deletion. And DeviantArt is easily notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. M0ffx (talk) 08:31, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

I also say keep. I do not understand why this article should be deleted. If it is then that would mean all articles on other website, products or anything that can be considered advertisement when you talk about it should also be deleted. If something sounds as an advertisement, edit it so it does not seem so. Looking at the policies and guidelines for deletion there is an option for advertisement articles. It should be used instead of deleting the whole thing. --Chibi Fluffy (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination seems to be based on lack of 3rd party sources. Since dA is one of the largest online art communities, I think there are some reliable sources available. I've tagged this for Article Rescue. -- w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 22:28, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. w L &lt;speak&middot;check&gt; 22:28, 21 December 2010 (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.