Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shrillblog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. - Mailer Diablo 12:36, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Shrillblog
Alexa ranking in 2million, 150ish google hits (mostly irrelevant blogroll-type cruft, this clearly fails WP:WEB. I'd speedy this, but it would probably generate hate. If not, feel free to speedy. timecop 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - fails WP:WEB and doesn't appear to be notable at all. No sources either to show any notability, so delete. Jayden54 16:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - non-notable. a page about a blog. - Femmina 19:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
- Delete' - ^ What he said, I'm tired of all the blogtards getting their own pages in a wiki. Go make your own and stop wasting our time. --Amanduhh 21:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - Fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:V. Lacks any sources beyond the primary source and lacks any non-trivial non-blog sources. --Quirex 17:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - So, it's hard not to notice: This 'War On Blogs' thing, as seen on timecop's user page, is a Gay Nigger Association of America group that nominates blogs for deletion, and then converges to ensure a 'delete' vote? Have fun abusing the system, I guess. Auto movil 07:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - yes, your comment was TOTALLY relevant to the debate on this page. Please provide a valid reason why THIS particular article should be kept in encyclopedia, lacking reliable sources, verifiability, and failing to be a notable website. Comeon, 2million alexa? My *personal* homepage has higher alexa rating than this blog! Stay on topic, please. --timecop 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - You're an avowed member of a trolling group -- i.e., a troll -- who nominates blogs for deletion under a set of pretenses that you invented yourself. This is relevant to your nominations, and to this discussion. I see included in your list of noms a high-traffic portal (i.e. Buzzflash) and a left-blog that won several awards (i.e. Sadly No). Therefore, anything you say must be taken in context. You'll present a bad-faith case for deletion, such that no neutral user can rely on your statements. But if it works and turns you on, you're welcome to play with Wiki rules as much as you like. Auto movil 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - Maybe you have a thing for personal attacks on AFD pages, seems like something you've done it in the past. There was nothing notable about Sadly, No and I have no idea when Buzzflash was deleted, but it wasn't my nomination. So your other conspiracy theory against me as some evil blog-deleter is thrown out too. --timecop 09:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - You're an avowed member of a trolling group -- i.e., a troll -- who nominates blogs for deletion under a set of pretenses that you invented yourself. This is relevant to your nominations, and to this discussion. I see included in your list of noms a high-traffic portal (i.e. Buzzflash) and a left-blog that won several awards (i.e. Sadly No). Therefore, anything you say must be taken in context. You'll present a bad-faith case for deletion, such that no neutral user can rely on your statements. But if it works and turns you on, you're welcome to play with Wiki rules as much as you like. Auto movil 07:58, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- comment - yes, your comment was TOTALLY relevant to the debate on this page. Please provide a valid reason why THIS particular article should be kept in encyclopedia, lacking reliable sources, verifiability, and failing to be a notable website. Comeon, 2million alexa? My *personal* homepage has higher alexa rating than this blog! Stay on topic, please. --timecop 07:37, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
- 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.
