Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bartcop (2nd nomination)

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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bartcop[edit]

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

Blogger. Nominated for speedy as spam. Initially I actioned it thus. Then I noticed that the speedy tag had been applied by an IP and that the article has been around for seven years! How come nobody in this time has managed to add any evidence of notability? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:53, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the answer to your question is that there is no significant coverage in reliable sources or notability. Fails WP:BIO. Claritas § 20:18, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nom de plume of a notable blogger.--_Sulmues^{Let's talk} 16:30, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Sesel's rationale in the first discussion. Calling this site, which is apparently updated once a day and sometimes not even that often, a "blog" is really stretching the term. Şłџğģő 17:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have heard of this person so he is probably notable. The article is in very poor shape however. Borock (talk) 13:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Consider reading WP:IKNOWIT. Erpert (let's talk about it) 07:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second relist rationale. The article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will the closing nom note that the only "keep" votes have been saying WP:ITSNOTABLE and absolutely nothing else. Clear cut no-consensus at worst. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Suggo's/Sesel's rationale clearly goes beyond WP:ITSNOTABLE. --Schuhpuppe (talk) 13:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Was just thinking the same. It's kind of obvious people aren't looking at the first deletion discussion. Şłџğģő 17:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The site seems to get name-checked enough in general accounts of the left-wing blogosphere to merit a mention here. We might therefore direct readers to a suitable article such as blogosphere. Deletion would be unhelpful. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2010 (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.