User:King of Hearts/Admin coaching/AfD/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readergirlz
Readergirlz
Non-notable website, written by people affiliated with the site. Contested prod, no reason given for removal. CyberGhostface (talk) 23:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete per the nominator's reasoning. --talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep Though it needs a major re-write and addition of more content/coverage, the article is
clearly(debatably) not advertising (there's nothing that really "promotes" it, it's just rather one-sided) and the subject and its activities meet web content notability criteria by being covered by multiple independent, non-trivial published works as seen here, here, here and here. KhalfaniKhaldun 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC) - Delete per nom. — talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Weak keep. I understand the article is spammy and needs a change in tone, but I did a Google search and checked the references when I declined the speedy deletion, and I believe notability is solid. - Dan push to talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep - the site is notable with coverage in multiple reliable soruces. The spamminess is an editting issue and not overt enough for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
- Delete Not notable enough. GT5162 (我的对话页)16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Comment Is there any reason to delete other than 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Reply - The last couple of delete opinions don't explain how the sources you've identified fail to establish notability. I would expect the closing administrator to take that into consideration when determining the outcome as this is a discussion and not a vote. Saying "not notable enough" in the face presented sources isn't really a discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 18:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep The article needs a rewrite but the sources establishing notability can't be ignored. --Jmundo 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- Keep as notable in the usual way, but clean it up, please. The references have several credible cites, including newspapers and nationally known websites. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 21 April 2009 (UTC)