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. Cirt (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fender Discussion Page[edit]

Fender Discussion Page (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

In my view the somewhat promotional tone and content of this article is not truly appropriate for an encyclopedia, though of course that could be easily fixed with some pruning and editing. The main point is whether this privately-owned, paid website is notable enough for inclusion here. I myself can't find enough non-trivial independent sources about the website to convince me of that it meets the WP:WEB criteria for notability. Google news gives 6 hits [1], of a trivial nature, googlebooks and googlescholar none at all. What do others think? Slp1 (talk) 22:58, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While the site is fairly self-contained, it has existed for many years and has become psuedo-non-profit, as members gratefully receive advice and donate beyond what's required. While Greene doesn't publish his financials, he's stated in the past that his primary goal (and, in fact, personal rule) is simply not to spend any of his own money on it. So, while it's "for profit," I don't think it's lucrative, if that matters. The site has tens of thousands of registered users and hundreds or thousands of real regulars. See the main Talk page for some statistics re. the site's relative noteworthiness. Jeff Muscato (talk) 23:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I couldn't find any reliable, independent sources writing about this web site. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Doesn't meet WP:WEB, no outside sources, just another forum.    SIS  00:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Doesn't meet Wikipedia's basic standards for inclusion. Skirts WP:CSD#A7 web content criterion. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ will never be anybody's hero now 13:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE The FDP is an Idaho Limited Liability Company, solely owned by Greene as the Managing Member.

Their income is derived from two sources: advertising revenues from our sponsors and member contributions. These funds are deposited in the FDP checking account and are reported as income on their tax return. They also report expenses for all the costs related to running the site. What net amount remains is taxable income and what remains after that, is net profit. They are NOT a non-profit organisation. And so should not have a free advert on Wiki. Signed Damien Cahill.

Just so you know, being a for profit web forum is not a problem as far as wikipedia is concerned. After all, we have articles about Google and Yahoo. Unlike Google and Yahoo, however, FDP doesn`t seem to be notable: there are very few mentions of it in the media and other reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article is unencyclopedic and as much as I want to keep this article, the article still fails WP:RS and until recently, was completely unsourced. (Right now it's just citing its own website for reference, which is, by itself, unacceptable.) - Jameson L. Tai ^{talk ♦ contribs} 16:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:36, 1 October 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.