Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rachael Ray Sucks (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
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 Delete.--Húsönd 04:57, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rachael Ray Sucks

  ATTENTION!

If you came here because somebody asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus amongst Wikipedia editors on whether a page or group of pages is suitable for this encyclopedia. We have policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

You can participate and give your opinion. Please sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Happy editing!

Note: Comments made by suspected single purpose accounts can be tagged using

{{subst:spa|username|UTC timestamp [optional]}}
Rachael Ray Sucks (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

A prior debate was speedily deleted, a decision which in turn was overruled at deletion review, and is now back here for a full run. Procedural listing, I have no opinion. trialsanderrors 00:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete This article is fluff. A non-existant footnote, mentions of notable papers but no links or references to back up such assertions, and a quote without sourcing of any kind. Until sources can be found this cannot be verified and merely asserting notability does not mean it is notable. Should have been speedied the first time under G11 or A7. --ElaragirlTalk|Count 00:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article about a Livejournal page that makes unsourced and unfounded assertions of notability. Apparent vanity article. Dragomiloff 00:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete (first choice) or merge and redirect to a brief mention in Rachael Ray. Many celebrities, firms, etc. now have a "...sucks" attack site about them (it's a sign of the high culture and politesse of modern civilization, I suppose), and they don't warrant articles. Newyorkbrad 00:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Oddly enough, wikipediasucks.com is being held in Iceland. ~ trialsanderrors 04:08, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as unverifiable LJcruft. Statements such as "[t]he community is one of the most popular on LiveJournal" do not seem credible without anything to back it up. At best, if the mentions in the publications indicated can be sourced and verified, this may be worth an extremely brief footnote per merge and redirect at the Rachael Ray article, per Newyorkbrad, but not in its current state. --Kinu t/c 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete, as blogs are not inherently notable. Note, 160 ghits if you search ("Rachel Ray Sucks" -livejournal). --Dennisthe2 02:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment - OK, I spelled Rachael wrong. Still, spelling it correctly and eliminating myspace from the equation still turns up less than 800 ghits. Mostly mentions in web fora. --Dennisthe2 02:48, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per Elaragirl's comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The Runescape Junkie (talk • contribs) 03:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete should have stayed deleted. Danny Lilithborne 03:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Extreme Delete Just what is the use of this? This is an insult to Rachel Ray. And I agree with Elaragirl, too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kyo cat (talk • contribs) 04:11, 15 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete Unverified and non-notable. TSO1D 04:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Elaragirl, the claims of mentions in Slate, NYT, etc are not backed up by references. The LA Times link given as a reference for the Rachael Ray quote is a dead 404 error, and the quote should be removed posthaste if no reliable source can be found. Besides, while Rachael Ray ain't no Julia Child, she doesn't suck, at least not in public. Tubezone 04:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete an attack page masquerading as an encyclopedia article of an attack website. I can't believe that the DRV people overturned this following a speedy. There is no way this meets any encyclopedic criteria. DRV was generous that day... --Jayron32 04:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. MER-C 05:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Why exactly was this overturned? Valley2city 06:32, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per above--C.lettinga 06:44, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Delete Attack page - no possibility of V; not encyclopedic at all... SkierRMH,06:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Rachael Ray - this is a real thing, after all, and while existence doesn't automatically get you an article, it seems like it could get a (brief) mention in the parent page (if it's not there already?) There was a sizeable thing in the NY Times Magazine about it on Nov 26.--Dmz5 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Which you can read if you have a subscription - it is, therefore, technically verifiable--Dmz5 07:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - per Elaragirl. Non-notable, and unverified. Moreschi 08:57, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Super-Speedy Delete - this didn't even need an AfD. should have been speedily deleted. And what's wrong with Rachel Ray?
  • comment-I really don't have much of an opinion here, but I think it's strange that so many of these votes have said stuff like "there's nothing wrong with Rachael Ray" and "she does not suck!" etc. Obviously you are all sockpuppets of Rachael Ray.--Dmz5 09:13, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment If Rachael Ray wants me to be her sockpuppet, she'll have to do more than cook and look cute on TV. My old lady can cook circles around Rachael Ray, but Rachael Ray's looks and cooking abilities are not at issue here, this is about notability of the the RRsucks web site. So far, we have one verifiable NYT article, one unverfiable LA times quote. Keep digging, what else you got? Tubezone 10:27, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Speedy Strong Super Delete - per Elaragirl and others. IMHO, Rachael's a hottie too. - F.A.A.F.A. 09:39, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • I decided to be bold and add a passing, well-sourced reference to this in the appropriate place on Rachael Ray. Hopefully it doesn't get reverted in thirty seconds. --Dmz5 09:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
In light of the fact that it's still there, I'm all for simply deleting this article.--Dmz5 21:43, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Per TonyTheTiger, this LiveJournal was apparently the subject of a human interest story in November in the New York Times, and that is its claim to notability. I remain unconvinced that this is the sort of news coverage that has enough legs to keep this site interesting after a few more months have passed. And personally, I think the pendulum has swung too far, and editors are becoming too timid about making decisions which might be called subjective. I don't think that this news story makes this journal noteworthy enough. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the article - well, sucks. Guy (Help!) 15:26, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. Trollfluff. Tzaquiel 16:59, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - WP:BLP - WP:RS.Bakaman 19:15, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge My first impulse was to delete. However, wikipedians should be in favor of informational availability. A small footnotes about her opposition could be included in her main article. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - no worthwhile content. Deb 20:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete of course. Absolute drivel. Why are we wasting our time here?--Anthony.bradbury 22:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

New York Times Article Posted on Discussion page at 19:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC) by User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) TonyTheTiger 19:47, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete though I have frequently heard of this community its a pure cruft article that would only interest certain people. There could be a small tidbit added to the Rachael Ray article if it is not listed there already but I'm still hesistant to even consider that as a beneficial edit.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete their 15 minutes are just about up --Infrangible 14:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Hey, guys, WP:WEB. That's the overriding guideline here, and this undoubtedly meets it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Def agree WP:WEB. Strong presence on the web and info deserves to be here. RayNay 22:49, 17 December 2006 (UTC)Raynay — RayNay (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong keep. Strongly Agree WP:WEB. Just because the "Rachael Ray Sucks" site is an "insult" to Rachael Ray does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete the article on the Ku Klux Klan because they are an insult to black people. No. Wikipedia is a repository of information, not a place for personal vendettas. The Rachael Ray Sucks site has a strong prescense on the Web, and therefore deserves to stay on Wikipedia. GeneralChi 22:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: This AfD was blanked to remove all the "delete" recommendations. I think I've reconciled to the correct version. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Could someone in the "keep" camp explain which of the WP:WEB guidelines this article meets? I personally cannot find satisfactory reliable sources (plural... as in it was mentioned once in NYT Consumed column, and that's it). I'm willing to reconsider my recommendation if more sources are found. --Kinu t/c 02:36, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep: Fact, this group DOES exist. Fact, it has been written up several times in various publications. Fact, the owner of the group has done numerous interviews. Fact, there ARE people who dislike Rachael Ray. You can't change the facts. You can only try to hide them. michelle 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC) — Recipe addict (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment: Mere existence does not make this encyclopedic, WP:NOT an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Google. Where are the "several" references of which you speak? Several editors have asked for these, but these requests are simply met with generalizations and commentary about "Rachael sucks, don't mask the truth!" Personally I don't care one way or another for her, so I suggest that those in the "keep" camp stick to the facts rather than perceiving this as an outlet to classify those who seek deletion based on policy as Rachael Ray minions. --Kinu t/c 15:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment It should be noted for the benefit of those people commenting on this who have never been to wikipedia before, but wikipedia is NOT merely about "facts" or "the truth". It is about verifiable facts. Please click the blue link to learn more about this important concept. Mere existance is not enough to qualify an article for acceptance at wikipedia. Anyone can create any website at anytime. It does not mean that one can then use Wikipedia as a means of advertising that website. There does not seem to be any compelling reason that Wikipedia needs to keep this as an encyclopedia article. Perhaps as a single-sentance mention in the article Rachel Ray. But not as a complete article on its own. --Jayron32 17:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge: I agree that it needs to merge with the Rachael Ray article. The mention in the NY Times alone gives it enough presence to at least be mentioned on the RR Wiki-article. Nico2001 23:28, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Fact: Wikipedia is (intended to be) an encyclopedia. —Encephalon 09:22, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The topic has Already been added to Rachael Ray, just so people who don't want to read this entire debate are aware. --Dmz5 10:00, 19 December 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/r/t/Wikipedia%7EArticles_for_deletion_Rachael_Ray_Sucks_%282nd_nomination%29_4d65.html"