Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blabbermouth.net

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. WjBscribe 05:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blabbermouth.net

Blabbermouth.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This was originally speedy-deleted as CSD A7. DRV restored, in part because of new information revealed at DRV. Please consult the DRV before commenting. This is a procedural listing, so I abstain. Xoloz 13:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable sources are provided that indicate that this site passes WP:WEB. Half of the article is just many links to posts (and seems rather spammy), and the rest is uncited original research/personal opinion. The DRV did not convince me otherwise, no WP:RS were provided, nor IMHO any valid assertion of notability. Leuko 13:52, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The article has been much improved by User:M3tal H3ad (so many thanks to him/her), and it looks more like an encyclopedia article now. Unfortunately, I am still not convinced that the site meets the WP:WEB notability guidelines' primary criterion of multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. Only one of the 4 sources listed approaches being a WP:RS, and the coverage of the site is rather trivial. Also, I do not consider an Alexa traffic rank of 46,000 to be "very high". While definitely a weaker delete than before, I still feel that the site does not meet notability inclusion criteria, and should be deleted.
• Weak Keep: Certainly needs a TON of cleanup. Worth cleaning up if only for the large number of articles which link to it. I do realize, however, that notability is barely asserted, and that the article fails to cite any reliable sources. A simple google search of "Blabbermouth.net" finds almost nothing beyond blogs. Therefore I suggest major cleanup/reduction of the article, and if this proves impossible, possibly deletion of the article.Drewcifer3000 20:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Keep: Much improved article after rewrite. Seems to satisfy most of the criteria for a web article. Still needs a bit of work, but definitely worth keeping. Drewcifer3000 19:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

• I added a history section and cleaned up the lead. Although I'm going out now i will be able to clean it up in a few hours. M3tal H3ad 02:46, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Many articles on wikipedia use it as a source (use the "what links here" tool). It is used as a source at news.google.com (with over 1600+ hits). Also hosted by a record company, which makes it liable for things claimed. If its good enough for google to cite as a source its good enough for wikipedia. Very high alexa rating. It does need massive clean up, especially the links, which are WP:OR. Arbustoo 05:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• I have cleaned the article up, and it has completely been re-written by myself - previously looked like [1]. M3tal H3ad 13:30, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep LuciferMorgan 17:24, 29 April 2007 (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.