- 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:22, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
BuzzFlash is simply not known outside of the 'blogosphere'. This would make it relatively obscure and therefor not worthy of a Wikipedia article. Amanduhh 23:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete fails WP:NOTE. Tulkolahten 00:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- No reliable sources, no assertions of notability. Appears to fail WP:WEB given that a LexisNexis search returned 17 hits of press releases, some trivial mentions (e.g. "A website offers anti-Tom DeLay T-shirts featuring a can of bug spray. Another, buzzflash.com, recently sent out an alert titled "Hypocrisy Is Tom DeLay's Middle Name, Along With Exterminator." -National Review), and one editorial from buzzflash.com which was apparently distributed through The Democratic Daily. Delete unless reliable sources turn up. shotwell 03:46, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ""Delete""--Sir james paul 03:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I've heard of it. It has a minor following. That still doesn't mean Wikipedia needs to be a web directory. Puppy Mill 03:29, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I found this from the Washington Post, "Mark Karlin, editor of BuzzFlash.com, with 2.4 million readers per month, said his readership doubts anything will come of the disputed intelligence claims." [1] -- Dragonfiend 17:30, 4 December 2006 (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.