Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crooked Timber
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 of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 00:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
nn blog, Alexa rank of 41,369, no media coverage, doesn't seem to meet WP:WEB Pboyd04 02:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Crooked Timber"+blog produces 3.6 million Google Hits compared to, for example 1.3 million for "pajamas media"+ blog and 750 000 for Israpundit+blog
- Factiva indicates media coverage by SF Chronicle, Australian, Chronicle of Higher Ed,NY Sun and the Guardian JQ 03:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This is a well-respected group-blog, contributed to by numerous notable academics. Cnwb 05:09, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as apparently notable blog. Google rank of 7. —Quarl (talk) 2006-01-16 06:04Z
- keep as Cnwb William M. Connolley 09:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, notable political blog. -Colin Kimbrell 15:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as per the above. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep please the blog is notable Yuckfoo 00:57, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Notable. Often cited, so influence probably higher than readership numbers would indicate. Herostratus 17:44, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- Notable. — goethean ॐ 16:55, 18 January 2006 (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.