Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DogsBlog.com

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 keep. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Weak Keep Article is much improved since last viewed. Sourcing looks better. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares (I left my delete comment, but disregard, this will supercede...[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]
Keep. Topic meets WP:GNG as it's been covered in two major national newspapers and some special-interest journals. Alzarian16 (talk) 21:24, 6 June 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.