Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Florida News
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. Tone 18:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Florida News (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Even though there are multiple sources, none of them are enough to establish notability. This article, this article, and this article are all passing mentions of this blog. I have searched for sources and have been unable to find any. Since "Florida News" is a search term that returns many unrelated terms, I may have missed coverage about this blog. If at least two nontrivial reliable sources about this blog are found, I will withdraw this AfD. Cunard (talk) 21:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I was the editor who added the speedy delete tag. Judging by the rather novel standards being used for websites at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietime, it is safe to say that the passing mentions of this blog do not convey sufficient coverage. What is currently at the linked URL is not even the blog that the article discusses; what is currently there has only 13 posts, dating from May — July 2007; what the article discusses is a blog which apparently was at that site earlier. (Blogspot seems to allow domains to be reused from time to time). The Internet archive's last entry for the blog described is from June 26, 2006 [1], complete with the requisite self-promotional link to the Wikipedia article in the upper right corner of the site. Outside of breaking one story, this blog was entirely non-notable, and only the wayback machine allows us to see that. There is a bit of coverage on the one story in the first three references, and a single mention in the fourth reference, but no substantive coverage at all. Horologium (talk) 23:02, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Horologium. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Looks like the article has four sources, I'd say that's pretty good for a blog. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:57, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One of the sources mentions the blog in a single sentence, another mentions that the blog was the first to report a story (in a single sentence); only one (an interview with the blogger which appeared in Creative Loafing), has more than a passing mention of the blog. (The fourth link is a dead link to the post, in the blog's previous incarnation). FWIW, one has to work to get to that blog post, since the Internet Archive has no direct links to the December 2004 version of the blog. Horologium (talk) 15:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was noted for being the first to break a story, and other media sat down for an interview with the blogger, that's a pretty good case for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zombietime, in which quite a few editors are arguing the opposite. FWIW, I support retention of that article, because of far more substantial coverage. It looks to be headed for deletion, and there's a lot more discussion of that than this, with passing mentions in two articles in the same newspaper (the St. Petersburg Times), and a blog interview in a free alternative weekly. Horologium (talk) 15:48, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If it was noted for being the first to break a story, and other media sat down for an interview with the blogger, that's a pretty good case for notability. Squidfryerchef (talk) 15:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This defunct blog clearly fails WP:WEB. As Horologium points out it has not "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself."--Cúchullain t/c 15:05, 25 September 2009 (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.