Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dr. Sputnik's Society Pages (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, noting that also the creator has changed his mind Tikiwont (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Two peer reviewe sources, and one reliable website owned by soylent, there's four reliable sources. It is a small article which needs iomprovement, however there is nothing fundamentally wrong with broadcasting a news website. I wonder how many people have investigated the four mentions the site gets on google.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 11:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I WOULD LIKE THIS ARTICLE TO BE DELETED. I've changed my mind.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 16:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm proud.--Cymbelmineer (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. I recommend that Cymbelmineer review WP:RS, WP:WEB and WP:V to gain a better understanding of what constitutes a reliable, independent, published source which discusses the subject in significant detail. Links to other websites don't qualify. The website in question doesn't qualify. A website of this "Dr. Sputnik" doesn't qualify. To quote: "Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited." Ravenswing 20:22, 13 October 2010 (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.