Deletion of Rachael Ray Sucks (2nd nomination)

Comment: It should be noted for the benefit of those people commenting on this who have never been to wikipedia before, but wikipedia is '''NOT''' merely about "facts" or "the truth".  It is about |verifiable facts.  Please click the blue link to learn more about this important concept.  Mere existance is not enough to qualify an article for acceptance at wikipedia.  Anyone can create any website at anytime.  It does not mean that one can then use Wikipedia as a means of advertising that website.  There does not seem to be any compelling reason that Wikipedia needs to keep this as an ''encyclopedia'' article.  Perhaps as a single-sentance mention in the article Rachel Ray.  But not as a complete article on its own
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: WP:BLP - 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: though I have frequently heard of this community its a pure |cruft article that would only interest certain people.  There could be a small tidbit added to the Rachael Ray article if it is not listed there already but I'm still hesistant to even consider that as a beneficial edit
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fancruft (WP:CRUFT)

Comment: per Elaragirl, the claims of mentions in Slate, NYT, etc are not backed up by ''references''. The LA Times link given as a reference for the Rachael Ray quote is a '''dead 404''' error, and the quote should be removed posthaste if no |reliable source can be found. Besides, while Rachael Ray ain't no Julia Child, she doesn't suck, at least not in public
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS)

Comment: Hey, guys, .  That's the overriding guideline here, and this undoubtedly meets it
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: Strongly Agree .  Just because the "Rachael Ray Sucks" site is an "insult" to Rachael Ray does not mean it should be deleted. Should we delete the article on the Ku Klux Klan because they are an insult to black people. No. Wikipedia is a repository of information, not a place for personal vendettas. The Rachael Ray Sucks site has a strong prescense on the Web, and therefore deserves to stay on Wikipedia
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)

Comment: An article about a |non notable web site, a LiveJournal user page for all that, which is in turn an |attack page on a living celebrity.  You don't get more speedy deleteous than that
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB||WP:CSD)

Comment: Mere existence does not make this encyclopedic,  an indiscriminate collection of information, nor is it Google. Where are the "several" references of which you speak?  Several editors have asked for these, but these requests are simply met with generalizations and commentary about "Rachael sucks, don't mask the truth!" Personally I don't care one way or another for her, so I suggest that those in the "keep" camp stick to the facts rather than perceiving this as an outlet to classify those who seek deletion based on policy as Rachael Ray minions
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

Comment: Def agree .  Strong presence on the web and info deserves to be here
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:WEB)