Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I am lonely will anyone speak to me
- 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. Any merger can be discussed elsewhere, there is clear consensus that the topic is notable Eddie891 Talk Work 01:09, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
i am lonely will anyone speak to me
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- I am lonely will anyone speak to me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
A non-notable thread with the only claims to "notability" being that it used to be a popular website and formerly being the number one search result for a Google search. Does not pass
WP:WEB; most of the coverage from reliable sources is either trivial (a summary of the site and its purpose/functions) or uses it and its webmaster as just one of many examples of the more notable topic of the internet connecting lonely strangers. The website the thread is on is not notable either, to the point that it redirects to the page for the thread. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 17:00, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
]
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- KEEP Coverage in Wired magazine and The Guardian are significant coverage in reliable sources. It passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 17:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
- Comment: It is a rather trivial topic but it has attracted substantial RS coverage. The Guardian article discusses the thread in depth and the New Yorker piece is a little thinner but also SIGCOV imo. And there is this from Salon in 2014, which isn't in the article. I think it passes GNG - the question is whether or not there is really enough to say about this thread that it makes sense to have a stand-alone article for it rather than merging it to a broader article about internet memes or the social effects of the internet. It seems destined to be a permastub otherwise, but I can't think of a decent merge target at the moment. Spicy (talk) 18:43, 16 August 2020 (UTC)]
- Keep Easily passes ]
- Keep: It has received some coverage in the net and books. It's good enough to pass ]
- Keep - has gotten ongoing, significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 23:04, 20 August 2020 (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.