Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RedandNater.com (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   no consensus. Tim Song (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

RedandNater.com
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod (I had to semi-protect it, and didn't feel that it was right for a semi'd article to be deleted to prod); original rationale was "Article is of dubious POV and notability. It is not even close to wiki style." NW ( Talk ) 21:45, 19 March 2010 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:27, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: When that Prod tag was added by Terrx, the article had recently been majorly vandalized (this is the edit in where the prod tag was added, while the vandalism had not been removed). I have notified Terrx of this, but he doesn't appear to have been on since about a day before I put something on his talk page.  The prod tag was not added to the actual article, but a vandalized form of it.  Ian.thomson (talk) 02:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Relisting comment. I would normally close this "no consensus" per WP:NPASR but I know that the nominator would rather have this relisted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, weakly. Looks like there's at least one dead-tree source.  Been through the wringer once already. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:30, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Weakly. At some point I presume the board will just die off and then the WP page will be gone, if it survives till then. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete.The article appears to be a promotional tool for a small message board. The links (including the dead ones) don't add much credibility to the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.111.23.26 (talk) 02:25, 9 April 2010 (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.


 * Delete.I view the board frequently, and the article in no way represents the actual content on the messageboard. The article is basically an attempt at promotion, but any moderator that would look at the board would see that the article is completely inaccurate.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.221.78.177 (talk) 00:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, The board is frequently quoted in main stream media as a source for breaking broadcasting industry news. Opponents of the board have slowly whittled away at the content of the WP page in an effort to get the WP removed. As a resource that is seen as a leader in dissemination of information for an entire industry on a regional basis, I think it warrants being kept.  Joe Forkeybolo (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2010 (UTC)