Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fuelmyblog

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. -Scottywong | chatter _ 16:23, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fuelmyblog

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

Only one reliable source is provided, and I can't find anymore. Does not meet the general notability guideline or the website specific guideline. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:02, 13 April 2012 (UTC) Added two more reliable sources to help with this discussion. Warebloke (talk) 08:51, 13 April 2012 (GMT)[reply]

Weak keep per Warebloke's sources. They aren't brilliant, but they just scrape a pass of WP:GNG in my book. Yunshui 雲‍水 10:50, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:01, 13 April 2012 (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) 02:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to pass WP:GNG; not terribly important but scrapes notability. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:40, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete this site has existed for almost 5 years yet the coverage is relatively little in that time of existence. Most coverage is small. LibStar (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2012 (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 04:58, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 19:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Topic meets WP:GNG per The Sun article and The Guardian article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 18:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Sun article is clearly either an advertisement or an editorial. Note the last sentence, "If you have a product or service you really want to see talked about on the web, this is one click that will surely pay dividends." That is a direct pitch for the service. No reliable newspaper editor would consider that a piece of factual reporting. Thus, it's either not a reliable source, or not independent. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I'm sorry Northamerica100 but I'm forced to agree with Qwyrxian about the first source you provided. Also, the second appears to be a blog and neither of them have bylines. I was almost fooled by the second one though. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Looks like WP:PROMOTION to me. This sounds like a Web directory based on voting or clickthroughs, or perhaps it belongs in Methods of website linking. But being the Technorati for the UK according to press releases, interviews, blogs, and other WP:NOTRELIABLE sources doesn't justify FuelMyBlog getting it's own article. --Joshuaism (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Colapeninsula SpeakFree 12:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpeakFree (talk • contribs)

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.