Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubbersuit Studios

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was del. mikka (t) 20:14, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Rubbersuit Studios
del nonnotable. Nonverifiable. 7 google hits. mikka (t) 14:41, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I was very surprised when this was added to Wiki. It was not added by anyone I recognize that is assciated with this site.  In terms of verification, what do you need?  Tax ID number? Obviously, I am biased, but I vote not to delete.  In terms of google hits, the site has been up since Feb and has recieved more than 250 google hits.  It is also averaging 25,000 hits per week. 16:47, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Malach
 * Malach, the guideline at work here is Google test. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. We've already got articles for other, less notable webcomics. Fernando Rizo T/C 17:44, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. I was corrected by Carnildo at Votes for deletion/JesusMan. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:30, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. With 7 hits, there's not much that could be called 'less notable'. Do we have articles for creators of less notable webcomics also? - ulayiti (talk)  18:55, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Fernando, thanks for the info, the site is only 6 months old, hence lack of google hits. JesusMan on the other hand has quite a few more.19:36, 28 July 2005 (UTC) Malach
 * Delete. Too few hits for Alexa to rank it. --Carnildo 21:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe someone needs to explain why any of the above reasons for deletion have any bearing on whether this particular article should be kept or not. It sounds very elitist to be deleting article base on Google Tests and rankings. It's not profane, copywritten or falsified. Leave it. Murk 12:00, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NOT We're not Google. 208.20.251.27 17:41, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Didn't realize I hadn't logged in. The above is my vote.  Robert A West 17:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. For this reason alone it should be kept: "They have had a variety of clients, and specialize in solutions for Charities and Not-For-Profits. They provide art lessons and tutoring, specializing in adults and children with disabilities." If someone of this nature is looking for a place that does provide these types of artisitc services, then they would have Wikipedia to credit for finding such a notable and worthy place. Also, the website does promote art in an original format which is also worthy of Wikipedia mention. Myko 10:39, 02 August 2005
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Wikipedia is not a web guide.  Wikipedia is not a charity.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. --Carnildo 19:13, 2 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.