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. Tyrenius (talk) 03:31, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BarbieGirls.com[edit]

Fails WP:WEB; unsourced. Also: administrator "Can't sleep" redirected this page to Barbie three months ago and was reverted. I think he had the right idea. Also: the original author, Rinku11 (talk · contribs), has few other edits and may have a conflict of interest. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 21:29, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would agree that "Can't sleep..." had the right idea, but it may warrant a one-line mention when merged. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:42, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete I don't see enough justification (notability) for the article as a stand alone. Pharmboy (talk) 22:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's notable in the world of pre-teen girls, believe me. I believe that sources can be found to confirm that this is popular, and that there is a feeling among parents and educators that the internet site is an acceptable means for introducing girls to computers. Granted that neither you nor I (nor most Wikipedians, sorry) played with Barbie dolls, but like "Bratz", it's popular with a large group of consumers. Mandsford (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this is a significant brand-oriented site. If it should be redirected it ought to be to Barbie Girls, which is the name of the brand extension (Bratz-like stuff), which we do not have an article on or even a real mentino in Barbie.[1][2][3] --Dhartung | Talk 23:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Dhartung's good research work but it does, definitely, require major cleanup.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the multiple links cited by Dhartung. (jarbarf) (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly a notable website. I was the one who reverted that redirect: the main Barbie article said nothing about this website, and even if it had, the site warrants the more extensive coverage possible in a separate article. Everyking (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2007 (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.