Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secret London

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. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 20:41, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Secret London

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is essentially an article about a Facebook group. There is some notability (if the refs are anything to go by) but nothing beyond other, more successful, FB groups that do not have their own articles. Basically I don't really see the notability here but chose AfD over speedy due to the refs. I think we'd be setting a poor precedent and have there are arguably more notable FB groups that do not warrent their own article (such as this).raseaC^{talk to me} 20:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really neutral about this one. An article about a Facebook group is a new one to me, but there appear to be legitimate sources in there (not all of them, though). Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I certainly don't think deleting is really appropriate, as this isn't just a Facebook group, but also a website, which has a large community of users. Not only that, but there have been several stories in London papers about the group & site's history and success. Surely the press that Secret London has received justifies its presence on Wikipedia? Physic_sox 21.35, 18 March 2010 (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physic sox (talk • contribs)
Keep sufficient evidence for importance. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has received significant coverage in reliable sources. That it is a facebook group does not matter. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.