Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Total Recut


 * 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. John254 01:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Total Recut

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

non notable website. google hits 1000-ov. Asod123123 (talk) 13:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   -- the wub  "?!"  14:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I worked with User:Ragaman7, the original author of this article, to ensure that it was a reasonable article, and believe that it is. Regardless of the number of hits, it has recieved media attention, as the references show, as well as winning awards, as the references show. Therefore, it passes notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines. Ragaman7 also assures me [s]he has sources refuting the nominator's claims. J Milburn (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, misread what the nominator said. In any case, the Google test is unreliable at best, and I stand by the rest of my comment. J Milburn (talk) 19:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong keep - definitely notable and verifiable. Awards won, loads of coverage - what more do you want?--Vox Humana 8' 00:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will the closing admin please also note that the nominator's contributions show him/her to be a single-purpose account user, using it solely to nominate stuff for deletion.--Vox Humana 8' 00:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. I wrote this article about Total Recut with the assistance of J Milburn because I felt the information should be archived so that people in the future will be able to find out about the issues the website has raised in the media. The site itself has appeared in various media sources, all of which are cited in the article, and it has won a number of prestegious awards, also cited. Therefore, as, J Milburn mentioned, it passes notability guidelines and verifiability guidelines.--Ragaman7 (talk) 19:07, 11 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.