Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FAIL Blog

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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FAIL Blog

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant independent sources to establish notability. — Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. he is clearly trying to get rid of this blog because i wannted it kept. i would like to see this very funny website kept on wikipedia and let others know about it Chef Blue (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)This account is a sockpuppet of wikibrah, see their userpage.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. –túrian^patois 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~if you visit the fail blog at http://www.failblog.org/ i think you would change your mind Chef Blue (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)~~Striking sockpuppet edit[reply]

Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and these. You might say that a lot of these are mentions, but with so many recommendations from over 20 something popular reliable sources, I'd say that this website is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is also the fact that it won two Webby Awards. Joe Chill (talk) 22:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks like there are enough sources to establish this as notable. Makeemlighter (talk) 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I visit the website from time to time and a lot of people i know visit it as well. I have no reference on this but it is absolutely notable in my perspective. Str8cash (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just so you know: WP:IKNOWIT --Cybercobra (talk) 01:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Webby Awards are sufficient to establish notability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - winning a Webby award is good enough notability for me.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with I Can Has Cheezburger?, blogs and mentions in a time article about I Can Has Cheezburger? suggests it is not notable by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does winning two Webby Awards show that it isn't notable by itself? Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Webby awards are only done by user-votes and it is likely the I Can Has Cheezburger? network of sites promoted it. This site is part of that network of websites. If more decent non-blog sources were found, then a separate article would be justified.--Otterathome (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this. The Webby Award homepage itself says that it has "nearly 70 categories". 70! Are all these 70 websites (per year) notable? Oh, yeah, and every category has two winners, the "Webby Award" winner, and the "People's Voice" winner. And FailBlog didn't even win the Webby Award, it won in the People's Voice category. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this" How about let's try not to boss other users around? Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I wasn't bossing anyone around. I was pointing out that "has won a Webby Award" is no evidence of notability. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wait... let me get this right. Winning a popular vote makes it... non-notable? Metty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Webby award makes this notable. AniMate^draw 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep won a Webby, popular humor website. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Webby award makes it notable per WP:WEB: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I've added more refs today to the article. This has had far more mainstream coverage than I thought (and I generally keep up with internet memes), including a chunk of a piece in the NY Times about how "Fail" is now used as an interjection. I also added the Webby information, though it would be notable without the Webby wins.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Just take a look at those sources. I haven't seen an article flagged for rescue before, so to me it's crazy (in a good way) for such a small article. Yowuza yadderhouse |meh 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When an internet meme leads to a neologism and a popular website, people are going to come to wikipedia for info about it. I do think the Controversy section sounds a bit peacocky, though. SithToby (talk) 20:46, 10 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.