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. Notability not established. The article is borderline spam, albeit with "sources". seicer | talk | contribs 00:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewcars.com[edit]

nn website Mow3212 (talk) 02:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - spam. / Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, fails WP:WEB. Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Obviously NN, no remaining value, I'll get someone to speedy delete it. —Sunday ^Note 12:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but not speedy. Borderline G11 spam, but the references means it asserts notability (even if there isn't much in reality) and it's just about enough of an article not to be out and out spam. Having said that, this is little more than an advert for a not particularly notable site. Pedro : Chat 14:13, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - References seem valid. The site seems to be small but growing with steady userbase. Their user reviews get distributed via RSS on Google and Yahoo, and they give expert interviews on different radio stations such as KOMO (AM). / Octaviusc 15:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Above user has only 2 contributions, both to this page. —§unday His Grandiloquence 18:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Pardon me, but I have contributed extensively in the past without registering. Octaviusc
Don't worry, I'll file a RCU for you. —§unday b 22:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I created this page and I certainly did not mean it to be a spam. The general public has every right to know some background information on small but useful websites. So I collected information from various sources that seemed credible and created this page. / bearing3k 17:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you missunderstand what Wikipedia is about - what "the general public has a right to know" has no bearing whatsoever on wether it should be included. We're not a soapbox. Pedro : Chat 20:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I respect the inclusionist mentality expressed above, however, I cannot find any reliable sources to demonstrate this article's notability. It certainly exists and probably interesting and useful to some, but it simply does not meet our guidelines. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:51, 14 September 2008 (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.