Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DataLounge

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) ansh 666 00:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DataLounge

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:Notability (web) or WP:GNG - there are not enough reliable sources out there to support it. Boleyn (talk) 12:20, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. /wiae /tlk 13:49, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant, non-trivial coverage from independent sources, per WP:WEB and WP:GNG. Lapadite (talk) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Major website, and has been for two decades. Plenty of significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. The fact that people haven't added many citations to the article doesn't change that. Deleting this article would be like deleting GeoCities. -- Softlavender (talk) 09:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm seeing enough sources to justify a weak keep on GNG grounds, but I'm bumping up to just "keep" because part of the reason finding in depth coverage is difficult is that there are so many sites talking about what people are doing/writing on Data Lounge (e.g. Gawker has a tag for it) and so many citations without talking about it much directly. Neither of those are guarantees, and certainly wouldn't cut it on their own, but they're decent indicators of a site's significance such that, combined with the sources I do see (e.g. Wired, Advocate, Advocate (via HighBeam)), I'd have to say keep.</runonsentence> — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:45, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is very clearly a large website visited by many people in the LGBT community for quite a while. PureRED (talk) 12:27, 26 February 2016 (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.