Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Sputnik's Society Pages (2nd nomination)

Dr. Sputnik's Society Pages

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unremarkable web site (fails WP:NOTABILITY). Article created by relatively new editor whose edits suggest that they believe they are on 4chan instead of Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is shamelessly self-promoting and is mostly nonsense. Addionne (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. search yields no reliable sources to indicate the subject is notable. Salon reference is about rotten.com, not article subject. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 23:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The facts are, it gives insight into the depth of this organization and refs. It is very clear, as well as giving a distinctly notable web isbn on hyperlink 8. It isn't right to delete it. IMO.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

UserDeliciousCarbuncle, people could take your commentary as being idealogically motivated. The sinews of websites may seem stupid, much s bonsaikitten.com may seem stupid, however it has an article. You are ignoring the fact that this website has a dedicated repository on a website such as rotten.com, and it may well be argued that it's childish to think that a websites context matters much. Content over context, my friends, before you cast your votes, that is all I ask.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article is covered, or covers itself, so notable

Article has good faith sources. The fact that they are titled rotten.com and jerkcity, doesn't mean they are not reliable. No promotion of websites, just bio. This is why it shouldn't go. It comes across as prudish to throw up ones hands after that IMO. But what would I know, I probably think its chan????--Cymbelmineer (talk) 00:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No credible claim of notability. VQuakr (talk) 02:26, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]