Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DogsBlog.com

DogsBlog.com

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. Contested PROD. Non-notable website. Note that I have PRODded the related magazine. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am the original author of the article. Nominator has failed to notice citations from a UK daily newspaper. Meets notability requirements and I have taken care to ensure there is no uncited information on the page. Miyagawa (talk) 10:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When I listed it for deletion there were two refs from The Sun (newspaper). That is hardly a reliable source for WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does claim that they have rehomed over 6000 dogs - I'm no dog expert but I imagine that's notable. I think the fact the article has been featured in Did you know (see talk page) makes it notable. However, I'm not overly sure it justifies an article here. WackyWace ^talk 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to use the notability guidelines set by WP rather than any sort of claim in the article itself of notability. Six billion dogs would be notable!!! WP:WEB is a good place to start in order to determine whether this blog is notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Virtually all of the article refs are tied to K9 Magazine. This article is spam in all but name. I have put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 11:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The number is irrelevant. Article meets criteria #1 under Wikipedia:Notability (web). Miyagawa (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with assertions by Alan Liefting. Wiki should not be used to promote blogs, either. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 16:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]

I would ask that you visit the website or at least read the article as it's not a blog, it simply uses the term blog to sound catchy and memorable. Miyagawa (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's not promotional. The promo speedy was even declined. --Savonneux (talk) 21:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have now replaced several of the previous references with more independent sourcing. Prior to this AFD I was unaware of any connection between K9 Magazine and DogsBlog itself. The remaining K9 Magazine references only reference the 3000th, 4000th and 6000th dogs rehomed. Miyagawa (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Mild Keep Based on the recent improvement in the sources.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]