Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedandNater.com

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 close) The consensus below is that between the sources already present and those added during the AfD, notability for this website exists. Darkspots (talk) 23:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RedandNater.com

RedandNater.com (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable web forum, the only source which mentions it is not useful for creating an article on the subject. My speedy deletion tag was removed. Corvus cornixtalk 22:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I dare argue that more Wikipedia readers care about redandnater.com than care about WUSM Radio in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WUSM-FM. I appeal to your discretion at letting me complete telling the story of the site, and if I fail, then, feel free to kill the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Forkeybolo (talk • contribs) 22:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Unless there's a big WP:SNOW consensus coming here, you have five days to provide reliable sources as to the website's notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: referenced and notable. TallNapoleon (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Please explain what references show that this forum is notable. Corvus cornixtalk 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Tall Napoleon. I have inserted a number of examples of the site's impact on the broader community, and links to a number of resources that have credited the site for its role in current events. This is not a vanity site, and it is not in any way promotional or intended to get the site additional traffic. It is simply historical reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Forkeybolo (talk • contribs) 00:07, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. It's good that your speedy tag was removed, because speedy isn't appropriate for something that asserts notability. Multiple non-trivial mentions (especially the third one) in RS strongly suggest notability. Celarnor Talk to me 00:24, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I wish I could get some advice on types of things I could do to prove worthiness and/or increase the chance that the post will fit guidelines and stay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Forkeybolo (talk • contribs) 00:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete, local web forum. No assertion of notability. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do the sources provided not assert notability? Also, its not local, its regional. Celarnor Talk to me 01:05, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
A politics blog, something called Rake magazine, and one brief mention in the Star-Tribune. The only notable source here is the Star-Tribune, and one brief mention does not establish notability. Is this website the subject of frequent coverage in the Star-Tribune and other legitimate print and broadcast media? Or just one brief mention? Wikipedia is not a web directory. KleenupKrew (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm (obviously) new to this. Short of external media references lauding the contributions of the site, how does one prove notability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe Forkeybolo (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

That should be all you need. Some people just want more than others; those will suggest deletion, while others, who have looser beliefs about what's required for notability, will suggest keeping it. Celarnor Talk to me 01:04, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

How do I know if the post will survive? Is there a time limit for deleting a new topic? --Joe Forkeybolo (talk) 01:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, it'll go on for five days unless an extremely clear consensus to delete or keep develops by then. You can find how all this works here. Celarnor Talk to me 01:56, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - suitable notability shown in WP:RS already that it's not 'just' a forum(although granted it looks like it!) SunCreator (talk) 02:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for helping me through this process. You all, even the negatives, have been very helpful. --Joe Forkeybolo (talk) 02:16, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep. WP:RS mentions show some notability. --JulesN Talk 05:42, 23 April 2008 (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.