Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flashback (media group)


 * 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 keep. -  Daniel.Bryant  08:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Flashback (media group)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

No independent assertions of notability. Claims to have over 100,000 active members between the English and Swedish groups; yet of the 3,000 odd member of the English forum, only 600 or so have posted, while only half of the 117,000 members on the Swedish forum have posted. Drat (Talk) 15:07, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Or either you solve it by just removing the word "active". --RichardKoin 15:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete - whether the members are active or not, this isn't evidence of notability. Although the fact that it's been checked by the Swedish police might make it notable, multiple independent sources are needed to demonstrate this. Currently all external links are to the site itself; third-party sources or links are needed to meet WP:WEB. Walton monarchist89 16:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - sources now added are more than adequate to establish notability. Walton monarchist89 10:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete . No secondary sources to even establish notability. Some might argue that a message board having over 6 million posts is "large" or "inherently notable" -- it isn't. --- RockMFR 18:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Boards ranked at BigBoards.com seem to be considered big boards around here, Flashback is. Anyway, don't focus so much on the forum, this topic is about Flashback Media Group (it should be renamed to that) and not Flashback Forum. -Freddo —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.228.240.87 (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC).


 * Keep. I think this article seems edited/fixed. I don't see how it breaks any rules. I think it will be interesting to see this article grow. --MrToken 18:56, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there are no independent, reliable, verifiable sources to show why this is notable. The only sources are the site itself. Verifiability, Reliability, and Neutal Points of View are three core rules of Wikipedia.--Drat (Talk) 04:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. This site has clearly made an impact on enough people to be called "notable" --KJS1982 10:10, 19 February 2007
 * Nice to see how the information is getting improved. It is good. --MrToken 18:58, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's in the Swedish news on a regular basis, that English readers cannot read them does not make the subject less notable. Nyp 20:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If this is true, then it should be referenced in the article. --- RockMFR 20:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I can go through various online editions of major Swedish newspapers and use them as references in the article. The question is whether non-English sources would be left there. I've read other editors claim that non-English sources not should be used. I am not familiar with the all the policies of the English edition of Wikipedia, care to direct me to the applicable ones? I wouldn't want to waste my time on looking for articles that I can't use. Nyp 21:31, 19 February 2007 (UTC)::
 * - Flashback in the media for various reasons: http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=443438 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=699507 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=644050 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=593625 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=664721 http://expressen.se/index.jsp?a=664721 --MrToken 07:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * - More articles in Scandinavia's largest daily newspaper Aftonbladet. http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0010/20/flashback.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/telegram/0,1082,53373679_INR__,00.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0010/05/flashback.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/9912/17/jan.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/0003/28/flashback.html, https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/9912/17/nazi.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,216949,00.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/9912/17/gardell.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/nyheter/story/0,2789,828232,00.html, http://www.aftonbladet.se/vss/noje/story/0,2789,730056,00.html. --Nyp 16:22, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Even more on Svenska Dagbladet. http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_12753673.asp, http://www.svd.se/dynamiskt/inrikes/did_13664888.asp and Göteborgs-Posten, http://www.gp.se/gp/road/Classic/shared/printArticle.jsp?d=355&a=277496. --Nyp 17:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Flashback has had a long history of being watched på SÄPO (Swedish security police), being prosecuted for offering "too much" freedom of speech, such as outing convicted pedophiles, hosting discussions about drugs and illegal computer hardware. As Nyp is saying though, how interesting would lots of tabloid articles in Swedish be for English users, just to verify that the site is what it claims to be? --Frater illum 22:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Added sources now establish notability. Good job. --- RockMFR 01:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, as recently added sources now demonstrate the notability of this subject. (jarbarf) 00:40, 22 February 2007 (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.