Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media Take Out


 * 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 per WP:SNOW. Peter Symonds ( talk ) 18:42, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Media Take Out

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Anyone who takes a solid look at MTO knows that it's a liars' website. They lack basic English grammatical skills, lie about several stories, and demand instant credit (bordering on racketeering) for their stories. I kept re-inserting that criticism section because it's THE TRUTH, but these admins (well-meaning, but misguided) kept deleting it because of "no source". JUST LOOK AT THE SITE LIKE I AM FORCED TO DO AS A JOURNALIST, and you'll see why it should not be dignified with an article (in short, the site doesn't come close to being notable). Tom Danson (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - We don't delete articles just because someone doesn't like the subject. The Boston Globe ref shows that it is notable enough. What you should do is add some references to what you are adding to the article. Otherwise, it is quite correct to remove it whether it is the truth or not.  C h a m a l  talk 12:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:28, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep It's sourced. Beach drifter (talk) 17:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The truth will out. Find verifiable information with which to improve the article, don't bring it up for deletion because of opinion.--Talain (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously sourced, baseless nomination. – blurpeace (talk)  17:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and close Nominator's rationale is not based inclusion criteria. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.