Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthlessreviews.com

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 of the debate was kept no consensus Pegasus1138^{Talk | Contribs | Email} ---- 06:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ruthlessreviews.com

Read like an advertisement, promotion page and notability has been questioned Riadlem 21:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom--Jusjih 22:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
• There's no reason to delete this entry. Ruthlessreviews isn't a commercial website, it's a critical resource which has been steadily rising in readership for a few years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.31.169.6 (talk • contribs)

- *Delete. Only valid claim to notability is an article in WorldNetDaily which mentions a stunt the website did. Everything else is vanicruftisement. Fagstein 05:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC) - **Note this vote was inexplicably removed by anon user. Thanks Wep for noticing. Fagstein 04:15, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, per nom. RexNL 22:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. User Riadlem has brought about this AfD under dishonest charges; please see [1] for his specific charges, and see that not only are the most egregious ones nowhere present in the version to which I revert [2], but any examples he has provided which are in said version are non advert/self-promotional issues. Someone have a link to RfC procedures so that I can inflict and equal amount of wasted time upon this Riadlem? At best, user Riadlem is guilty of a reading and comprehension disability—being unable to differentiate vastly different articles (in terms of content), and should perhaps think twice about continuing to edit Wikipedia given his glaring deficiencies. carefully examine the differences in edits before making such claims.dfg 19:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Personal attacks are against Wiki policy. Please keep it civil. IrishGuy ^talk 20:18, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course; my apologies. Fixed. dfg 20:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't have enough interest in this article to keep fighting. If notability can be established with more citations and language used match encyclopedic standards as well as POV eliminated, then I have no problem with the article staying. Riadlem 20:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Very convenient of you to completely ignore the specific charges. I will consider it an admission of guilt. Carry on. dfg 20:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am guilty of feeling attacked. I don't want to make it personal. But I first only tagged it as POV not asked for deletion. I made the mistake of reverting the second time, I admit. As one of the owner of the sire, I can understand that you want this article to stay but I still feel that the tone is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I am sure other Wikipedia editors , more knowledgeable on this kind of sites, could help you figure out a proper entry for your site if they judged it appropriate for inclusion. Riadlem 22:24, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Now I am being accused of having a seriously-vested interest, when I never have stated such, other than being a fan of the site? No, I am not an owner of said site. I merely have repeatedly expressed my frustration in your attempts to have the article deleted rather than cleaned up. This whole debacle was competely unnecessary. This is not at all to say that the entry does not need work. It does. A good day to you, sir. dfg 22:45, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. The article may require cleanup, but there are no grounds for deletion. The site is well-known, and the 80s Action Guide in particular is popular internet folklore. Documentation is, as such, encyclopaedic.GideonF 20:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Article doesn't cover notability requirements per WP:WEB TheJC ^Talk_{Contributions} 20:35, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Comment. Ruthlessreviews.com is considered notable enough by IMDb for them to link to it, and the fact that it is the only review site flagged by IMDb as "potentially offensive" attests to its notability.GideonF 21:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Site is notable enough for an article. Fractured_leader 20:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. What GideonF said. Needs clean-up and neutral tone, not a deletion. PhilippN 22:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. if cleaned as stated by GideonF and forum users [3] Wep 22:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs a cleanup, but it is linked by Imdb and other film sites, so is significant enough to warrant continued article Franger 07:30, 25 June 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.