Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdictor (Blogger)
- 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 no consensus to delete, but article needs improvement. W.marsh 13:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Vanity page about a non-notable blogger; neither his Blogger name (Interdictor) nor his real name pass the Google test. LoomisSimmons 12:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is not a vanity page, I (not the subject of the article) created the page during Hurricane Katrina because I saw the blog become mentioned throughout the media as a source of information. The subject of the article has edited the page, but his edits have not been self-promoting. "interdictor" is a term used not just by the subject (and speaking of Google test, it is the #1 Google result for the word), but a Google test of "interdictor" plus "katrina" or "hurricane" (disambiguating "interdictor" from) turns up a lot of mentions of this blog as being involved with the coverage of Hurricane Katrina. It clearly passes Google test. --Wingsandsword 13:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I'm not too sure if the definition of a vanity page means that the subject personally has to be the one to make it; after all, I could easily have a friend make a page about me. Be that as it may, it still reads like a vanity page, has no citations and seems to just be a reason to plug some guy's LiveJournal and shout out his girlfriend. LoomisSimmons 15:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. So far as I can see no ghits except this article and his blog. No sources cited. BTLizard 13:05, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. A search for: +interdictor +"hurricane katrina" returns over 12,000 hits and a search for: "michael barnett" +"hurricane katrina" returns over 1700 hits; the blog only hit number 7 on "Best of the Web" for 2005 (http://www.downloadsquad.com/2005/12/31/top-10-web-moments-of-2005/) and appeared in 2 issues of Wired Magazine (http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/13.11/posts.html?pg=2). It was a very popular 15 minutes of fame, reaching top 5000 or so websites for about 15 days (http://alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=mgno.com/&url=mgno.com/). Ikilled007 14:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per BTLizard ROASTYTOAST 21:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, one little spike of interest isn't notability. --Dhartung | Talk 10:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Wired article linked above suggests notability to me, and CNN quoting from the site also suggests notability. Needs references and copy-editing, but otherwise fine. JulesH 17:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do not use the word "vanity" in this context. From WP:VFD, "The accusation "VANITY" should be avoided [1], and is not in itself a reason for deletion.". WP has got into trouble about this in the past: look after WP and avoid using that word. DewiMorgan
- 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.