Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Readergirlz

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 keep and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 23:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nominator's reasoning. --Pstanton (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Khalfani Khaldun 00:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 00:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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 Dank55 (push to talk) 01:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Delete Not notable enough. GT5162 ^{(我的对话页)} 16:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any reason to delete other than WP:JNN? Khalfani Khaldun 18:39, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Keep The article needs a rewrite but the sources establishing notability can't be ignored. --J^mundo 04:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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)[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.