Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amateur Teen Kingdom

:{{la|Amateur Teen Kingdom}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amateur_Teen_Kingdom Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Amateur Teen Kingdom}})

:({{Find sources AFD|amkingdom}})

Not a notable website, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources, so fails WP:GNG. The award was in a niche category. Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC) Atlantic306 (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

• Delete. For a 20-year-old website, it doesn't have much coverage in reliable sources. Nothing in Google News or Google Books, and a web search returns affiliate websites. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete per nom's accurate analysis. And we really should do something about the tendentious, abusive dePRODDING activity of an editor whose goal is simply to frustrate enforcement of a notability guideline he disagrees with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:28, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as fails GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 03:18, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
• Delete as still questionable for the applicable notability, nothing else convincing. SwisterTwister talk 22:17, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

{{clear}}

: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.