Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/TVRage.com (2nd nomination)

To keep
Alexa TV.com comparison Google search results Referenced by the TV Tome article Only reason given was personal opinion No reason given
 * 1) Cooksey
 * 2) Mangojuice
 * 3) Andrew120 VNU
 * 4) Turnstep
 * 5) Siva1979
 * 1) 84.91.30.2
 * 2) Bill W.
 * 3) Green lantern40
 * 4) *Actual quote is "Doesn't seem any more or less notable than a lot of the other kept web related articles.."
 * 1) JohnQ.Public
 * 2) *Editor mentions criterion 3 in WP:WEB, but appears to misunderstand it
 * 1) Mangojuice
 * 2) Turnstep
 * 3) Siva1979
 * 1) Scouxx VNU
 * 1) James

speedy as recreated

 * 1) Aaron
 * 2) *Althouhg there's an "abstain" disclaimer here, it's not a vote and he presents this argument.
 * 3) Stifle
 * 4) Perfecto

wp:web

 * 1) Monkeyman
 * 2) Stifle
 * Lar

not notable

 * 1) Renata

explicitly refers previous afd

 * 1) Perfecto

AfD is a consensus, not a vote
Evidence of that can be had by counting noses, above... a strict count shows more keeps than deletes. But the consensus here is nevertheless delete as many of the keeps aren't "real" participants. Nice work Aaron... very methodical close. Do you always put this much thought into your closes? + +Lar: t/c 00:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I try to, it's just not always so explicit. Oh, and a note on the "real" participants: We're doing two things at once in AfD, that's finding facts and talking about how the facts fit into wikipedia.  I always encourage very new (nicer verbage that "not real"!) people to provide facts.  It's when it comes to the discussion about the facts that n00bs are sometimes given lesser weight.  For my part, I'll give almost as little weight to a naked "delete" vote by an editor with 5,000 votes as I would to a naked "keep" from someone with six.  Anytime you don't make an actual argument, you deny people the chance to refute that argument.  Hmmm... maybe I should box this up into a "brenneman's afd closing theory" in case I get asked again.  brenneman  {T}  {L}  00:54, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Mmm... ya. Box it up, and sell it! I meant "real" more in the sense of serious participants than in the sense of new, serious meaning they did more than pop in and say OMFG KEEP!!!!11one1!11!! or nn vanispamcruft! Delete! (those caricature the new participants and the jaded AfD old hands respectively, I think). But ya, maybe the trout is coming the other way, you're right, wasn't worded very gracefully. (PS, this "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data. Please try again. If it still doesn't work, try logging out and logging back in." is really getting on my nerves) + +Lar: t/c 01:16, 27 February 2006 (UTC)