Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fanpop.com


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 03:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Fanpop.com

 * – ( View AfD View log )

No coverage outside of the social media press. All references are promotional puff pieces. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 08:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete Non-notable. Wickedjacob (talk) 08:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:N Burhan Ahmed  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:16, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Not every fansite is the black plague. The site has enough Google hits and widespread followers to establish notability. My suggestion is to trim the article from overly promotional and overly long appraisal quotes and add some reliable sources, such as this one from TechCrunch or this one from Mashable. Also, I don't see how statistical data from Alexa can be considered a "promotional puff piece".
 * Small comment: without even having to dig deep, it was enough for me to click on the news link located next to "find sources", to get a handful of recent articles from ABC Online, Newsweek, USA Today, several local state newspapers and major foreign language press outlets. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:30, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * ABC Online: They're just crediting fanpop for sourcing the image (I can't see how this could be the original source, but okay)
 * Newweek: ""I want him to take me to prom, but after that, the next move is his," gushes fan Dottie, 17, on Cera's FanPop.com Web page. "All hail Michael Cera!"" - this isn't coverage of fanpop
 * USA Today: Briefly mentions that a teenager uses the site.
 * I've been through every result (there are only four pages). Apart from the Sacramento one (which is a promotional piece from 2006) there is no actual coverage of Fanpop. They are brief mentions that don't satisfy Notability. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 05:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In this article from USA Today, Fanpop.com is used to set an example of a large network. This is not a "brief mentioning of a teenager", but rather a reference to Fanpop.com as a major platform for countless fans to communicate;
 * Two full reviews here and here;
 * ABC Online uses Fanpop.com as a source here and here;
 * Brief or not, this is a major newspaper using Fanpop.com as a source again – this time for a quote;
 * There are numerous sources in foreign languages, such as Spanish (with domain extensions spread all over Europe and multiple South American countries), Italian, German, Polish, Slovakian, etc. This establishes worldwide notability as well, i.e. Fanpop.com is also notable outside of the English-speaking circle (which is not that small by itself). Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:24, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I urge anybody viewing this debate to go to each of the above examples and do a search on the pages for fanpop. Really not mentions that show notability. The exception is your examples in 2, but if you think that's independent coverage and not promotion you're being a bit naive. The non-English links are just social networking detritus. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 20:42, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
 * All your personal opinion, completely irrelevant to Wikipedia's interests. Interestingly enough, you created this deletion proposal in a very convenient timing – to justify your earlier comment that it's a "poor source". This Wikipedia essay should explain it all; your arguments are all forced and the other two editors are simply waving policy names. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 05:07, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found a bunch of fanpop spam, and that led me to discover the article which I noticed was a deletion candidate. Deal with it, and stop focusing on editors instead of content. My opinions match those set out in WP:NOTABILTY and WP:RS. If I aired my opinions with no respect to guidelines they would sound more like "let's delete this awful spam on sight". Wenttomowameadow (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Again, "spam" is your opinion. Please, let's stop right here and let uninvolved editors chime in. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 16:44, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's my point; "Pah, this is just useless spam" would be my opinion, which is why I'm not putting that forward as an argument. The argument I am putting forward is based in policy. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep and improve: Fanpop is a highly trafficked website and, in some ways, part of the new social media. There are some aspects of the article as it is presently written that are not important enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia in my view, such as the breakdown of most popular clubs, but that does not mean that there should be no Fanpop article on Wikipedia. In a lot of ways, Fanpop has become an online hub for supporters of various fandoms, people, and entities, and as such, is wholly notable for its service as a vehicle to aid in this commingling. I concede that Fanpop will probably never become as prominent as MySpace or Facebook, but it's certainly notable enough for at the very least a few paragraphs on Wikipedia. There is a case to be made here for improvement, but the case to nuke this article just falls short in my book. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Can you find any coverage of it showing notability though? Who says that it's a prominent online hub? 03:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenttomowameadow (talk • contribs)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  16:50, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete the above seems to argue that we should keep it because it's popular, but the Alexa rank (which is currently 1,183) simply isn't impressive enough that it should be kept on that basis alone. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:47, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you've missed my detailed listing of sources with extended explanations. Please read the entire thread and reply. Thank you. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 04:05, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I guess you missed where Wenttomowameadow pointed out exactly what was wrong with your supposed "sources". While we're at it, Fanpop seems to have fallen in Alexa rank since the 22nd, so if anything I'm even more convinced than ever. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: I only have one further comment to make. I would recommend that all in favor of deleting this article, as well as the AfD closing administrator, take a 10-minute field trip over to the actual website to judge it firsthand (if you have not done so already). Yes, such an excursion would do nothing about the issue of media coverage, but it could aid in the overall determination of whether Fanpop is something worth having a Wikipedia article for or not. As I've said earlier, it certainly seems major enough for encyclopedic mention in my book. --Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 07:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Us judging it for ourselves is absolutely the worst way to approach this. It's third-party coverage that counts; please at least gloss over NOTABILITY. Wenttomowameadow (talk) 09:30, 23 January 2011 (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.