Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogcritics (2nd 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.

Result was Keep. — Caknuck 05:47, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blogcritics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Article has not really been improved in any fashion since the last AfD, it is still mostly vanity. I don't see a self-proclamed "sinister cabal of superior bloggers" as notable enough to merit its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinm1978 (talk • contribs)

• Neutral. Badly formed nomination - tidying it. Since the previous AfD decision was keep, why was there any need to improve the article? But let us see what the "far more sinister cabal of Wikipedia editors" think. -- RHaworth 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think Blogcritics meets at least one criteria for notability as per WP:WEB. It has received an independent award from Forbes.com, and this seems to be verifiable. Granted, there is still quite a bit of content in the article that needs to be verified or removed, but the rememdy for this is bold editing, not deletion. Jay†Litman 17:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Award winning popular web site. Clearly notable. JulesH 23:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable and popular blog. Capitalistroadster 03:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, passes WP:WEB due to award and syndication. Article relies a bit too much on primary sources, and has tone issues, but that can be fixed. --Dhartung | Talk 07:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as it passes WP:WEB. The rationale for deletion is as clear as mud, too. Burntsauce 23:45, 4 May 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.