Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Therebelution.com

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 Delete. D e ath phoenix 21:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Therebelution.com[edit]

~~This American blog has no alexa rank at all.~~ I don't see how we could consider this a significant website. Friday (talk) 18:23, 16 February 2006 (UTC) Correction: While the URL listed on the page has no alexa rank, another URL for the same blog has a little under 700K, see below. This is still way too high, so I stand by the nomination for now even though it was initially incorrect. Friday (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

~~Keep~~ -- the web site has received coverage in the New York Daily News (link on article page), which already makes it meet WP:WEB. The article author claims the web site has received several blog awards, but has not included them on the page, yet. This deletion nomination is too early to be one based on the quality of the article; it was only written hours ago. Note that I suggested the creation of this page (see User talk:AlexHarris) because the blog does appear to be notable, but its creators are not, except under the blog's article. Give the author a chance to write the article! Mangojuice 19:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Change that to Weak keep -- WP:WEB mentions multiple coverages, so the one alone isn't enough, and I couldn't find the blog awards, so that's up to the author to find. Also, let me note that the site is hosted at blogger.com, which explains its alexa rank: it actually does have an Alexa rank of 696K-something: [1], which isn't too bad for a blog. Mangojuice 19:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd now vote for speedy delete as the page author (User:AlexHarris) and only significant contributor requests it. Mangojuice 05:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Comment: I still don't see how a single mention in a paper makes it meet WP:WEB. Also, my nom is based solely on the article's topic, not the current content. My opinion so far is that the topic of this article is an unremarkable website. If the article is going to go away for having an unencyclopedic topic, I'd hate for the poor guys to put lots of work into it. Friday (talk) 19:12, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that WP:WEB wants way, way more traffic than a 700K alexa suggests. Friday (talk) 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site in question just switched domains. It has received nearly 160,000 hits since last August and receives over 1,200 hits a day (see Sitemeter). AlexHarris 23:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been briefly updated, but may be removed if either of you consider it unencylopedic. It was only written as an edit to an inaccurate (and slightly deragatory) article created by a third party. AlexHarris 00:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC) Update: The blog in question was awarded a 2005 Weblog Award (a well-known, annual event in the blogosphere) for its TTLB category, hosted by Wizbang. If that qualifies as an independent and well-known award... It would appear to meet the WP:WEB. If not, then you may remove the article. AlexHarris 00:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a great blog, keep the article. The Rebelution is very popular among young teens. bethbookitty 08:41, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Comments: I have no idea what's considered a "reputable" blog award, so if someone who knows about this can comment, that would be great. Also, I see mention of Alexa has been moved out of WP:WEB, so I think I was remembering an older version when I was thinking the number should be far lower than 700K (10K was the rule of thumb I was remembering.) In comparision, a site who's webserver I administer has an alexa rank of 53K and has been around for over 10 years, but we would never consider for a second trying to make a wikipedia article about it- it's an insignificant website in the grand scheme of things. BTW- we don't care how great the blog is - that's completely irrelevant to our purposes here. Friday (talk) 15:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Is a great blog! You really should keep the article. Very popular, won awards, loved by many. I think that the Rebelution article should stay. Kara Gemmill 21:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to a former comment: With all due respect, someone said that, "it [the Rebelution]is an insignificant website in the grand scheme of things." Aren't spoons insignifiant in the "Grand scheme of things?" You have an article about them. Why can't you have an article about a highly influencial website?Kara Gemmill 02:20, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the previous user. What exactly is the purpose of Wikipedia but to inform? Would not a popular blog article inform more, than an eraser article? Yes, within Wikipedia an article concerning erasers exists. How can this possibly be useful information? Bethbookitty 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
UPDATE: Thank you everyone for your support. I personally don't think that therebelution.com can claim the same encylopedic relevance as erasers or spoons, but rest assured that I am very grateful for your defense of the article. I know each of you will verify that absolutely no attempt was made to alert anyone of the article or its status. As was said before, this article was written as an edit/rewrite of a slightly humorous version of the same by a third party. Our blog does not need, and arguably does not deserve, an entry on Wikipedia. Therefore, I think it would be best to remove the article for the time being. Thank you again. AlexHarris 21:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alexa rank 2,400,000-something. - Andre Engels 10:49, 24 February 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.