Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boy Genius Report
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 keep. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Boy Genius Report[edit]
- Boy Genius Report (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
non notable website WuhWuzDat 20:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This blog satisfies WP:WEB and WP:N given the significant reliable sources that cover the blog's reporting. Many of these sources are cited in the article itself. Further basic searching reveals a plethora of independent coverage of the blog, particularly in notable computing/tech/gizmo magazines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong KEEP This should be very obvious. Note that the nominator tagged this for speedy deletion as an A7 (no claim of significance), a tag which i removed. The cited references to ABC news, Technorati, the Huffington Post, CNBC, and other reliable sources make the notability of this blog (unlike most blogs) very clear IMO. I wonder why the nominator thinks it is "non notable". No other reason is provided in the nomination statement. DES (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - plenty of independent reliable sources sufficient to establish notability. MikeWazowski (talk) 04:16, 18 December 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.