Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J-Walk Blog (second nomination)

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 Keep. Cbrown1023 00:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

J-Walk Blog

J-Walk Blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• First AfD

Blog makes no assertion of notability. It fails every criterion of

• Speedy keep Generally I would say delete most blogs - but with 116,000 Google hits, including several newspaper articles, this seems one of the more infulential blogs. Source, reference and verifiability for a blog is surely the blog itself? The only issue is notabilty and I'd say it has that. Personaly I think this blog is rubbish - but that's not grounds for deletion. Anjouli 08:33, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

WP:WEB in that it doesn't seem the content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself, it doesn't seem to have won a notable independent award from either a publication or organization, and the content doesn't seem to be distributed via a medium which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster.--RWR8189 08:51, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment You're not serious? Even a quick Google shows otherwise. Is this in good faith or personal? —The preceding

unsigned comment was added by Anjouli (talk • contribs) 12:49, 30 December 2006 (UTC).[reply

]

I don't know what I'm doing wrong, I put "J-Walk" into Google, and I can't find any of the sources you are talking about. I refine it to "J-Walk blog" and I'm looking at 4 hits.--RWR8189 12:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I get "1 - 4 of about 273,000"... huh? Tubezone 14:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the hits appear to be within their domain - Google only shows two results per domain. The 272,996 missing hits are all hidden by this process. Zetawoof^(ζ) 03:05, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs references as to what makes it notable, but that shouldn't be hard to come up with. I recognized the name because it's been mentioned several times in newspapers. Tubezone 08:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you are familiar with some newspaper references, then if you add them that should easily mollify those calling for deletion. Unfortunately, just "remembering them" isn't going to make people here happy. Tarinth 18:48, 30 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither existence, nor a moderate readership, nor moderate googlehittage, is an indicator of notability. There are numerous blogs like this, and nothing here asserts notability for this one. WMMartin 16:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Anjouli. I too am not particularly fond of the blog in question but it has been written about in newspapers and if that's one of the basis of notability here then you have to live with it, RWR8189. Personally I don't think it should be a litmus test since newspapers aren't blog directories either (and they do a crap job of keeping their articles online, thus many blogs have to archive those mentions on their own blogs), but if you don't like it, then we should create new tests for determining blog notability. DelPlaya 10:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment would it be too much to ask for some sort of
    WP:WEB I have no problem with its inclusion, so far that hasn't happened.--RWR8189 09:27, 4 January 2007 (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.