- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:38, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Open blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Non-notable product. StAnselm (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I looked for mentions by reliable sources but found nothing. The article has an interwiki link to the Slovene language wikipedia article sl:Open Blog but that appears to be a different project with the same name: http://www.open-blog.info/about_us (which http://seclists.org/fulldisclosure/2010/Aug/233 mentions as having vulnerabilities). As to this "Open blog" (shown as "OpenBlog" on http://open-b.net/), it appears to be the project of Gordon Casper (see http://mycareerview.com/mycareer/). The "Open Blog Project" at http://www.icru.net/about/ appears to be unrelated. The name "open blog" makes it very difficult to isolate actual sources from all the other "blog"s that are "open" such as the New York Times Open Blog, or this French OpenBlog which works with WordPress MU. -84user (talk) 15:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:22, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per 84user (talk · contribs)'s searches and per the lack of reliable sources. This article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability. Cunard (talk) 08:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - After independent searches I am in agreement with the arguments of 84user and Cunard above. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:15, 23 November 2010 (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.