Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monsters and Critics


 * 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 no consensus. --Core desat 07:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Monsters and Critics


Non-notable spam/media site. 48 unique google hits, some from wikipedia itself. does not establish any kind of notability. timecop 04:56, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, fails WP:WEB.RWR8189 05:38, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Danny Lilithborne 05:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn, fails WP:WEB. Eusebeus 14:19, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Scienter 14:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - non-notable. fails. - Femmina 20:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a notable website. FellowWikip e dian 20:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a fairly notable web site. Forty nine hits on Google News Archive and Google News source. Capitalistroadster 01:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per Capitalistroadster. Note that User:Timecop is on a mission: User:Timecop/The war on blogs. - Mgm|(talk) 09:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable enough. Recury 19:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete within 36 hours, unsourced article. Sam Hocevar 22:55, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete unsourced, non-notable. --Amanduhh 23:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - Is listed on Google News and Yahoo News as a source, that could be seen as a sourcing of notability. I'm neutral on it, I figured I'd throw in that fact - Tawker 07:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment I wouldn't count any blog being on google news as a serious source. Of course, that's just me. I think I mentioned this elsewhere, but since there's never ORIGINAL content on blogs and just copy/paste from REAL news sources, I don't understand why googlenews would want to pick them up. --timecop 14:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep - Who are you people to say what is and what is not notable enough? It's Wikipedia's job to have articles for people to find out information on things.  And, fyi, if it's good enough to have a lead story on Google News several time's a week, it's pretty darn notable. Mets 02:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * comment - url plz. --timecop 03:25, 3 December 2006 (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.