Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Futon Critic


 * 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 Delete Deleting redirect also. Keeper  |   76   |   Disclaimer  22:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The Futon Critic

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

Article is non-notable, and has not been cleaned up or updated in its lifetime; also reads like a personal advertisement. Rockhound (talk) 15:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 15:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete waaaay under WP:WEB. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  16:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete only ref is a blog (and it is a ref for the founder, not the site) UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note, though that that because the article's creator is a notorious Wikilink spammer, there are almost 100 WP artcles in the Article namespace that link to this page (as can be seen here), so if it is deleted it will pop right to the top of Most Wanted Articles and so might be immediately recreated, unless someone is diligent about also deleting all those backlinks. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Willing to edit backlinks if necessary. Rockhound (talk) 07:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep The article Brian Ford Sullivan redirects here, and I think that's preferable over having a biographical article on him. This article can be about the website and the person behind it. David Kushner of Rolling Stone magazine wrote on October 2, 2007, "Which sites do networks troll? Top bookmarks include the Futon Critic, TV Squad and the favorite, Television Without Pity.". Brian Stelter, a reporter for The New York Times, referred to the site in February 2008. The site was mentioned in a column called "Trivia Q&A" by Tina Beaumont-Clay in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram on October 20, 2005. Looking at the articles that link to the page, it looks like it's cited alot in articles about television shows. Over 90 articles link to it. --Pixelface (talk) 17:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions.   —Pixelface (talk) 18:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment If this article is deleted, the Brian Ford Sullivan redirect page will be deleted also, so that is not a problem.  The blog and press mentions you cite do not rise to the level of "significant coverage" that is required by WP:WEB. The reason so many articles link to this site is because BFS is an active linkspammer, as I mentioned above - that is no reason to keep the article. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:25, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe the reason so many articles link to this article is because thefutoncritic.com is cited frequently (for news, etc) in television articles. For example, the featured list List of Heroes episodes cites the website for television ratings. The Rolling Stone article said the website is one of the "top bookmarks" that television industry professionals consult, so I assume it's notable. I've seen no evidence that the article's creator, Seinfreak37, is a "notorious Wikilink spammer." Of the 88 articles that link to The Futon Critic or Futon Critic, the creator has edited one of them, The New Adventures of Old Christine. On that article on October 16, 2006, Seinfreak37 turned "The Futon Critic" into a wikilink. 36 minutes later, this article was created.. --Pixelface (talk) 19:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've found numerous use in references that I would consider legitimate without trawling the article history. I'd like to see more evidence of the linkspam claims. That said, I don't think it is salient to notability, and should only be an issue if notability is marginal. The notability case for the website appears below-average but legitimate. --Dhartung | Talk 21:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - hugely popular website. Ghits=439,000.  The article is guilty as charged when it comes to quality, but this site is very notable.--Esprit15d • talk • contribs 22:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Cite your reference. Besides, if the site was so notable, people would have updated the wiki page when it was flagged as needing one. Rockhound (talk) 00:52, 15 February 2008 (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.