Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Largest Facebook Group Ever


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 19:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The Largest Facebook Group Ever
Vanity page for a subgroup of the social network Facebook. Non-notable organisation. No 3rd party reliable sources to assert notability. Unique Google hits for ("The Largest Facebook Group Ever") = 18 of 51 Fails:  Verifiability. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:02, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: I am wondering why this page is being deleted. If this page does not seem to have merit or importance then I strongly disagree. Just because this group has not been in any newspapers does not mean that it has no importance. This group is a vital part of the social networking website known as Facebook and it is imperative that this page remain available to those who are new to the group and would like to find out what this group is all about. Many times people who are new to the group on Facebook wonder what the history of the group is and this Wikipedia entry can inform them rather than having the regulars on the wall explain everything every single time. Also, this Wikipedia entry should be allowed to remain because of it's importance to those who belong to the group. Many members of TLFGE love using Wikipedia and this entry is sure to only increase their love even more. I certainly felt that way when an entry was created for my high school. I'm sure that the existence of the group's Wiki entry will encourage members of TLFGE to continue using Wikipedia and possibly introduce Wikipedia to people who have never used it before thereby securing even more Wikipedia users. Thanks. Skatediva88 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)skatediva88 — Possible single purpose account: Skatediva88 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Delete Per nom. I was wanting to AFD this as well, but I wasn't sure how best to make the argument. You make a good case. I also think WP:NFT applies. Irongargoyle 22:15, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicsoul52 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Musicsoul52 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment: This is not, a WP:NFT this is acutally a huge part of college culture, the Largest Facebook Group Ever, is the example of the facebook culture, it is probably the single most important thing in facebook history, besides facebook it's self. This is not something just a few people are in on, CLOSE to a million people are in on it. That's not a little thing.


 * Comment: I agree that TLFGE is a fad but doesn't the fact that it is a part of Facebook also make TLFGE verifiable? TLFGE is just a subset of Facebook but it is a very large subset. Out of 7.5 million members in Facebook, TLFGE has 780,000. I would say that is a large enough number to verify that this group has the right to a wiki entry. Also, the group is not just a fad in the US. There are many international Facebookers who are also in the group. I myself have made many international friends from the wall and I would never have met them if they group had not existed. Considering my personal experiences (which I know others have had similar experiences) completely relate to the goal of Facebook (social networking), this group certainly has merit and I would like to give credit to this group on wiki. Skatediva88 22:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)Skatediva88 — Possible single purpose account: Skatediva88 (talk • contribs) has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.


 * Reply: Being a fad is exactly why this doesn't belong in Wikipedia. The problem is that no one else but people already within the Facebook group would be writing it -- we have to take your word and your word alone. What if you were to stop monitoring this page and someone adds a lie? The rest of the editors on Wikipedia wouldn't be able to tell what was was true and what wasn't because there are simply no 3rd party reliable sources to verifiy anything written in the article at all. That's simply unacceptable in an encyclopedia. An article on Facebook can be verified because we can cite journalists who have investigated Facebook and much more likely to have fact-checked their statements before writing it from a neutral point of view. My philosophy on notability is this: you are only notable when someone else writes about you, not when you decide to write about yourself. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is currently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required to justify a unique article being created in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see Template:IncGuide). Borderline cases are frequently nominated for deletion and discussed on WP:AFD. Lack of fame is not the same as vanity. Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject; indeed, it can also be vanity if written by a fan, or close relationship. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses can be "vanity" depending on the amount of recognition - e.g. a homemade movie or game, a self-published book, or a fanfic story is not generally considered encyclopedic. In general, the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional. The key rule is to not write about yourself, nor about the things you've done or created. If they are encyclopedic, somebody else will notice them and write an article about them. It would be one thing if Peter wrote this, but he didn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Musicsoul52 (talk • contribs) — Possible single purpose account: Musicsoul52 (talk • contribs)  has made little or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment: "Does lack of fame make a vanity article?


 * Delete Netsnipe's nomination covers it perfectly. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 22:55, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete with alacrity. +sj + 23:58, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep it. It represents the social networking of facebook, but make it better written. It shows how it connects college students together, I believe its something that is very much an example of facebook.      Kyle Stingily —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.4.192.98 (talk • contribs).


 * Delete interesting, but not a single independent reliable source to satisfy WP:WEB.-- danntm T C 02:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Biased delete, as I despise this Facebook group, and any Facebook group that exists merely to exist (i.e. not about anything besides simply being a member of the site). Yeah, that's bad reasoning, but if I felt like it, I could also just go with "delete per nom/above". -- Kicking222 02:42, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Just plain Delete per nom/above. :-) Leuko 04:16, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per all similar recommendations above. Extremely-small-maybe worth a mention in the Facebook article, but not as a standalone. -- Kinu  t /c  04:46, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Db-nonsense. Silly. NN. Mceder 12:59, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Per above and per nom. GBYork 22:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment: "My philosophy on notability is this: you are only notable when someone else writes about you, not when you decide to write about yourself. -- " I agree with that and that would be the case if I wer Peter Johnston writing about the group that he created. AS it is, I am not Peter Johnston and neither is the other girl who was writing the article with me. Would you say the same about a student at a school who was writing an article on his/her school? 207.218.212.101 05:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Skatediva88
 * Reply: Articles on schools still strongly recommend 3rd party references per the Schools guidelines. Notability (web) requires it. I've still yet to see evidence that The Largest Facebook Group Ever has ever "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself". --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  06:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete not notable. Nuttah68 18:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete This group may be worth a small mention within the main facebook article, but as a user of facebook myself, I can say that it is really not that important. It doesn't show the social networking aspects of facebook or any such thing, in my opinion. Danaman5 03:29, 28 August 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.