Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Network Humor

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. Tone 15:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Food Network Humor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Website for which notability is not sufficiently established. References are primary or a blog (supposedly a celebrity blog, but there's no article for the individual concerned). (Also needs a considerable cleanup because it's promotional and presented as a guide - those in themselves are not reason to delete, but suggest a possible COI by the writer.) Speedy tag (placed some time ago) removed without explanation by an anon IP. I42 (talk) 19:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Anon IP was the article's author, who was paid to write the article (and is now blocked by myself for abusive sock puppetry to hide his paid editing). Brandon (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Never the less the article's issues state good reason for deletion regardless of abusive sock puppetry. URBAN-ANDY (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment — URBAN-ANDY has been blocked as a sock; no opinion on Food Network Humor, which I've not even looked at. Jack Merridew 23:43, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-notable website. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:53, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sign of any coverage by reliable sources, pretty much just obvious WP:SPAM. --RL0919 (talk) 18:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy deletion declined but delete anyway per above. SchuminWeb (Talk) 00:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom, amazing amount of sockpuppets! (although without them it would still be a delete) DRosin (talk) 22:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.