Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Canonist
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. --Coredesat 19:32, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to write about canon law scholars, and found this. A blog. Wikipedia is not a web directory. The talk page has various weblinks that it claims establish notability; I disagree. One story, linked to multiple times, merely quotes the blog's author about the subject of Jewish blogs. One other story mentions it among other similar blogs. This does not establish multiple substantial coverage per WP:WEB. Sandstein 19:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per the nominator. The stories at [1], [2], [3] and [4] are reprints of the same story about Jewish blogs in which the subject of this article gets a passing mention. The [5] story is about Jewish use of technology, again with a passing mention of the subject here. The final link is a blog. In summary, the original author has at least tried to reference the article but nothing adds up to notability. Nuttah68 19:44, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I think I've heard of Mr. Weiss. Not notable. YechielMan 19:57, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per Nuttah68. J Milburn 20:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Blog's Technorati ranking is 34,000+, and fails WP:WEB per above. --Dhartung | Talk 21:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I recognize this will probably be deleted, but I think it's unfair to claim this is based on any objective measure. If you got to WP:WEB, you see that its criteria are disputed. This page was created on the basis of having been references in the mainstream media, and contrary to what has been said here, it is not referenced solely in regards to being one of the many jewish blogs. Just thought I'd say this. Carry on, --Urthogie 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although WP:WEB is disputed a common theme in all notability guidelines is 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent' which I believe is the main concern. Nuttah68 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Could you explain to me, then, what you would require of a blog to give it an article?--Urthogie 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'multiple non-trivial published works', e.g. more than a couple of articles, about the blog instead of just mentioning it, from reliable sources. Nuttah68 22:08, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok. Could you explain to me, then, what you would require of a blog to give it an article?--Urthogie 22:04, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment although WP:WEB is disputed a common theme in all notability guidelines is 'The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent' which I believe is the main concern. Nuttah68 21:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- delete There may be borderline blogs, for which we can usefully debate the exact meaning of the standard. But this is way below that border.DGG 05:06, 13 February 2007 (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.