Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruthlessreviews.com (2nd nomination)

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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ruthlessreviews.com[edit]

fails WP:N. no significant third party coverage about the website itself [1] LibStar (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see that as a reson to delete Ohms law (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you have given zero reason for keeping, and what about WP:GNG? LibStar (talk) 04:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's the reason to delete... we write articles based on summarizing third-party sources, if there aren't any, or there's very little, there's no proper article to write (otherwise we could have an article on my Facebook page, or yours). The source cited here mentions Ruthlessreviews in passing and says it's a vulgar site... that's not meaningful coverage. I'd reconsider if better sources can be found... the google news results are somewhat promising, but as far as I can tell most related articles just repeat one of the site's taglines and that's it... that's not meaningful coverage either. --Chiliad22 (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm (re)reading the notability guidelines discussion now, partially due to this AfD, and partially simply for my own edification. However, my immediate response to the above includes two points: 1) a page within a website is substantially different then the website itself. 2) this was nominated before and the consensus was Keep... What's changed?

I can (and somewhat do) concede that the article is acutely in need of rewriting, at least in specific areas. Is that, in and of itself, a reason for deletion? In my opinion, the answer is no.

Anyway, if you want a "real" argument, how about this: That web site has existed for several years now and demonstrably has many users. That, in and of itself, can be said to generate some notability. Who is the arbiter of notability, anyway? Just because I may not have heard of something, some place, or someone, does not necessarily mean that the subject is not notable. Notability, in my opinion at least, should only be a secondary/supportive reason for deletion since it's simply too subjective of a standard to stand on it's own. 04:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ohms law (talk)

Wikipedia has a clear guideline here WP:N. LibStar (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess that what I'm saying is that it's not as clear to me as it seems to be to you... *shrug* 05:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Ω (talk)

The fact that "I've heard of it" or "It's important in my life" are poor criteria for article inclusion are one major reason why the modern WP:N was developed, with its emphasis on the objective (existence of third-party sources on the topic) rather than the subjective (how important Wikipedians feel the topic is). As for the prior AFD, it was closed pretty poorly... half of the keep votes were from obvious partisans, 1 keep vote objected to the nominator and didn't provide a reason to keep the article, and the other 2 were week votes that basically considered a link from IMDB proof of notability, which is irrelevant per WP:N. --Chiliad22 (talk) 11:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is that it would be fairly easy to turn those arguments around. I'm sure that you could do so yourself easily enough, and I don't want to turn this into some kind of back and forth pissing contest kind of thing anyway. If this article (or any other, for that matter) really is weak enough to truly fail a WP:NOTE "test" then it should be extremely easy to make any number of arguments based on any number of policies... Ω (talk) 12:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, if it passes notability requirements, then show us the sources that prove it... there's really nothing else to debate. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then just use WP:V, which is an actual policy, in the first place... Why even argue from WP:NOTE? Ω (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N is just WP:V restated. WP:V says everything in an article needs to come from reliable sources, WP:N says there should be enough content for an article if WP:V is applied. Applied to this article, if WND even is a reliable source, this article could only say "Ruthlessreviews is a vulgar website that hosted some pictures of a guy dancing on Ronald Reagan's grave". That's a very poor article, so WP:N rightfully says that we shouldn't even bother in cases where we can't source anything meaningful about the topic. --Chiliad22 (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But see, all your doing there is stating WP:IDONTLIKEIT (about the article itself) and your own opinion re:notability and verifiability... Content disputes are not a valid reason for deletion, as specified in the deletion policy here: WP:ATD Ω (talk) 13:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's completely untrue... nowhere did I say I like or dislike this site. It's hardly my own opinion about notability and verifiability... WP:N clearly requires multiple sources with non-trivial coverage. There's no content dispute, only a dispute about the existence of sources. If you can't reply to the arguments I'm making, and continue replying to things I didn't say, I'm done here. --Chiliad22 (talk) 13:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it will be obvious to any impartial reader that I actually have been replying to the arguments that you have been making. I don't have anything against you personally and I respect your opinion, I simply challenge it, is all. I would ask for the same level of respect in return.

Saying "prove it" and/or demanding references/citations for every sentence in an article seem to be a very weak argument, to me. That's one reason why I brought up the WP:IDONTLIKEIT essay. Ω (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you're still claiming to be replying to arguments I made, where did I demand "references/citations for every sentence in an article". Please quote where I said you had to provide a reference for every sentence in the article in order for it to be kept... I'm sure your impartial readers will be interested to know. Also, WP:IDONTLIKEIT says to say which policy applies and why, and that's exactly what I've done repeatedly... so you're quoting an essay that instructs me to do what I'm already doing. This is the 2nd current AFD where everyone in the AFD except you agrees with me, and in the other one an "impartial reader" is telling you "I don't know why you have such a problem with the AfD process..." I think you might need to think about whether all these impartial readers disagreeing with you might mean something. --Chiliad22 (talk) 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Real" arguments aside, there is no notability for this website whatsoever. Drmies (talk) 05:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- SpacemanSpiff (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, weakly notable for one small event, otherwise NN. Nakon 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:21, 18 June 2009 (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.