Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluther.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 was   delete. The consensus is that the sources provided are insufficient to determine notability. That other articles on similar sites exists is no reason that this one should be kept. That there was canvassing does not affect this close, but I do hope that some new editors stick around because I think this site will be notable in the future. Ged UK  15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Fluther.com

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )


 * Not notable. Possibly spamming/promotional material. Mglovesfun (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep - The site is a Silicon Valley start-up, got 600-grand from venture capitalists, and was articled on the New York Times, Business Pundit, and other news sources. (You'll see them on the External Links.) --Let Us Update Special:Ancientpages. 12:41, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Delete. I've just read the article and sources. It's a non notable start up company. I certainly like the idea of the website and may join, but blogs, magazine articles and venture capital don't offer notability. I wish them luck but most venture capital companies fail. They can come back if they actually succeed. Szzuk (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:10, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No showing that this meets the website notability guideline, and indeed, no real showing of sub-minimal importance.  Receiving financing does not make a business or online business notable.  The NYT coverage seems to be a general article on this type of web collaboration. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - The article does in fact meet the criteria for notability:
 * 1. The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. The article provides links to multiple newspaper, magazine, and (non-spammy, not-for-advertising) blog articles. While there are only a handful of these articles, they meet the multiple and the non-trivial guidelines.


 * 2. The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.[6]


 * While the website has not yet won an award of its nature, it has been nominated more than once. This suggests that it is similar in quality to the websites that have won these awards and in keeping with its nature as a start-up, is very likely to win a notable award as the site continues to grow.


 * I understand the concern about non-notability. This is certainly not a highly-notable or even moderately-notable website.  But it does meet the specified criteria for notability and therefore should be kept. 169.234.124.26 (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — 169.234.124.26 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Item #1-I am not sure they are non-trivial in nature. Item #2-You have provided the reason for not including the article in Wikipedia - it has not won an award.  Unfortunately nominations are not mentioned as part of the criteria. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and cannot rely on anticipated events.  ttonyb  (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia defines "trivial" as follows: "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." None of the sources in the Fluther article meet any of these criteria.  You may consider them "trivial" in a colloquial sense, but they unambiguously meet the criteria for "non-trivial" as defined by Wikipedia. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for nominations, Wikipedia does state "Being nominated for such an award in multiple years may also be considered an indicator of notability." So clearly the guidelines place some emphasis on multiple nominations, even though you are correct that this does not technically meet the criterion.  (It seems to me that if multiple nominations for the same award count, then multiple nominations for different awards really should count too, but I guess that's another argument.)


 * Keep - Exhibit A: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluther.com#See_also — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefedewa (talk • contribs) — Joefedewa (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Just because other stuff exists does not mean this should also. See WP:WAX. Each article needs to stand on its own.   ttonyb  (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment: I'm not really seeing a lot of non-trivial coverage in non-trivial works RS sources. Looking at the current refs, you essentially get the following breakdown:
 * Gajeebo - blog, not RS
 * AppScout - blog, not RS
 * NY Times article - trivial mention of Fluther.com, talks about men behind it and business practices mostly, the word Fluther appears in body once.
 * Brown Alumni magazine - only arguable RS that touches on Fluther.com content in any great detail
 * CNET - trivial mention - award nomination
 * SXSW.com - trivial mention - award nomination
 * Bizjournals.com - trivial mention - pretty much only mentions financial backing and backers
 * Techcrunch.com - blog, not RS
 * Digital.venturebeat.com - blog, not RS
 * Four blogs (not reliable sources per WP:RS), 2 trivial award mentions, 1 trivial financial backing mention, one very small, passing reference in the NY Times article on telecommunications, computing, and business practices, and a small writeup in an article that is barely an RS. Moogwrench (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Agree. The IP author is quoting WP guidelines without understanding them. They're trivial sources. Szzuk (talk) 19:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, hold on now. I may not be a seasoned editor, but I do think I understand the guidelines.  There is a difference between a trivial source (e.g., a listing in a directory) and a trivial mention in a notable source (e.g., passing mention in the NYT).  Can you link me to the definition of a trivial vs. non-trivial mention, since we have already covered trivial vs. non-trivial sources? 169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, at the risk of splitting hairs: the guidelines requires "multiple" sources. Does this mean two non-trivial mentions in non-trivial sources is sufficient to warrant inclusion?169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. When I originally CSDed this article, there was absolutely no indication of notability. Since that time, an attempt has been made to address that, which was sufficient enough for me to voluntarily remove the CSD tag. However, I am still not convinced the article meets notability guidelines. User:Moogwrench hit the nail on the head: everything being referenced is either not a reliable sources or is not significant coverage. As much as I appreciate the attempts to address the issues, notability cannot be generated. It's either a notable subject or it's not, and no amount of twisting blog posts and trivial sources together can compensate for that. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 19:40, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is that (1) it is only marginally notable, making it a borderline case and (2) none of the creators really "get" wikipedia editing. It didn't even occur to me that blogs don't count until the dude up there brought up the issue of reliable sources.  I really hope you guys will bear with us while we figure it out, though.  There's a lot to learn and it would be really frustrating and disappointing to have all this work deleted before we figure out how to communicate the content in a way that adheres to the guidelines. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 19:56, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. I totally understand that it can be difficult for newer editors to grasp everything, and, moreover, get everything right. Even some of the best editors screw up these guidelines. But, on the other side, that's also why this process exists - to manage it. I can't justify keeping the article in its current state, however you may consider creating an account so that you can userfy the page, where it will be less likely to be deleted, pull it up to standards (under the assumption that it can in fact meet notability guidelines), and then move it into mainspace when it will meet the requirements. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Due to the fact that several editors have been trying to correct the issues, perhaps the article incubator is a better option than userfication, should it be taken up. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 20:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Can one of the established editors explain and or highlight how the description/notability of this site differs significantly from other social networking sites like Answerbag? To me, the organization and links are remarkably similar. Mudfud (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC) -- — Mudfud (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – Unfortunately, the existence of another article is not relevant to this article – each article must stand on its one merits. It could very well be that the other article should be deleted as well. See WP:WAX and WP:ALLORNOTHING for more information.  ttonyb  (talk) 21:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Perhaps Askville, Answerbag, and all other sites like this should have their pages taken down. Until they are, there's a precedent. Medusa1122 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC) — Medusa1122 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – There is no precedent, as I stated, all articles must stand on their own merits. I suggest you reread the pages I noted above.  ttonyb  (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment As I clearly said, if this is not notable then those are not as well. So delete them.  Start with Askville and Answerbag and go from there.  Medusa1122 (talk) 00:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately I closed both AFDs as speedy keep per all the sources, and as a bad faith nom. Please do not try to make a point on wikipedia.  Thank you.   TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, non-notable website, OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Note: I put a db tag on this page last night. Woogee (talk) 23:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Can you please comment on my points to Shirik above about notability? Specifically that it is notable, but only marginally so and technically meets the criteria.  I agree that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, but I think I have provided a valid argument that has not yet been addressed. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – That is not an appropriate discussion for this venue. Please take this to 169.234.5.41 talk page. This is a discussion of Fluther.com's proposed deletion, not how it compares to other articles. Thanks...  ttonyb  (talk) 00:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Tony, I am discussing fluther.com's proposed deletion and I made no reference to other articles. I believe it is fair, in a discussion, for me to respond to the points that are being raised, especially when the same one is being raised repeatedly.  Woogee said it should be deleted because it's non-notable.  I disagree, and I have already explained why in my comments to Shirik.  These points have not yet been addressed by any of the users voting for deletion.  I am asking Woogee (or anyone else who is willing) to address my response to the claim of non-notability that I consider erroneous. 169.234.5.41 (talk) 00:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – My apologies, I thought you were asking for clarification with regards to other articles and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  ttonyb  (talk) 00:27, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Clarification My comment earlier proposing WP:INCUBATOR was not to indicate that it "technically meets notability criteria", it was merely a proposed avenue through which to work on this article, under the assumption that the various editors here are in fact correct that the subject does in fact meet notability guidelines but the article as-of-yet hasn't met those guidelines. My proposal for incubation should not be taken as foresight that the subject would meet notability guidelines, just that if the editors reasonably believe it can meet notability guidelines, then it could be taken out of mainspace while these (COI, but, in my opinion, valid) concerns are addressed. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 00:54, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand this. I was hoping that someone would be willing to comment on my response to the non-notability claims rather than continuing to reiterate that it doesn't meet criteria while disregarding my response to claims. 169.234.124.26 (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Response – OK, I hope that you don't feel that you are being ignored, merely that some might feel the point has already been made. Above, you said "Can you link me to the definition of a trivial vs. non-trivial mention, since we have already covered trivial vs. non-trivial sources?" Hopefully my response covers it a bit better:
 * First, trivial source. WP:WEB states that a non-trivial source "includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. The blogs must be discarded as essentially trivial, non-reliable sources, since per WP:V, self-published sources like blogs are not reliable sources.
 * Second, trivial coverage/mention. WP:WEB states that trivial coverage includes sources which give only "a brief summary of the nature of the content". This encompasses the awards and financial backing mentions in CNET, SXSW.com, and Bizjournals.com, as well as the NY Times article which only tangentially mentions Fluther once. Remember, under N, under the heading Significant coverage, sources must "address the subject directly in detail, ... [S]ignificant coverage is more than a trivial mention". A couple of small paragraphs without much detail is a trivial mention.
 * Also, keep in mind this heading (Reliable) under that same section. It states, in part, "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability." The fact that reliable secondary sources are so scarce is telling a lot of people that this is not notable.
 * This article has some sources which are trivial, and then some non-trivial sources which treat the subject with trivial mentions. The only arguable non-trivial source with a non-trivial mention would be the Brown Alumni magazine. Moogwrench (talk) 02:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. As stated, I am not, nor do I want you to think that I am, ignoring you. I just want it clearly understood that while I am a proponent of article incubation should that desired by the content editors, that does not mean that I believe it is notable at that time; that remains to be proven and really can only be proven by the creators (and future editors) of the article. Unfortunately, until such time that it is proven that the subject is notable, the article is not fit for mainspace. User:Moogwrench has done a good job of stating why the claims you are making are not satisfying these criteria. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Keep - It seems like this is turning into a circular debate for no reason. Wikipedia, you guys act like Fluther is some homemade site some kid made. It's an established successful website with notable supporters and mentions. The Fluther people keep saying that other sites similar to Fluther have articles so they should too. While this is not reason enough, I do see their point. It seems pretty hypocritical and unfair to allow other less successful websites have articles but not Fluther. This is not the only reason why Fluther should have a page, but it is a good point. Overall I think both sides are over thinking this. I agree that Fluther deserves an article because encyclopedias are where people go to learn about things and I think Fluther deserves to be learned about. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.204.72.77 (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) — 74.204.72.77 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment If anyone feels that other articles are about sites with no more notability than this one, would they please nominate them in the way this one has been. Peridon (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – Unfortunetely, "...[having an article] because encyclopedias are where people go to learn about things...," is not a valid reason to have one. If this were the case, then everyone's dog or personal mantra would have an entry.  ttonyb  (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Are you seriously comparing Fluther to someone's dog? This process has really made me question the integrity of Wikipedia. You guys are being incredibly strict for no reason. Fluther having an article is not going to destroy your website.  Why not go spend some time on articles that actually deserve deletion and leave us alone.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefedewa (talk • contribs) 18:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment – I suggest you reread the comment, there was no comparison between the two. Only a statement that alluded to the fact that without standards Wikipedia would contain anything and everything and everyone's dog or personal mantra would have an entry.  In spite of your comment, this is not personal. No one is attacking you or "you guys".  This is solely an attempt to determine if the article meets the notability criteria for inclusion into Wikipedia.   Sheesh...   ttonyb  (talk) 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. All of the regular WP editors think this article should be deleted and only SPA accounts, presumably from Fluther itself, want the article to remain. No new issues which would save the page have come to light, so it will almost certainly get deleted. Where can I find the page on someones dog? ;-) Szzuk (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Category:Famous dogs. Woogee (talk) 19:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A dog named Tiger Woods. Life is full of hidden amusement. Szzuk (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment For what it's worth, Regular WP Editors, I see your points but also agree with the other SPA (what does that mean, anyway?) editors that you are enforcing the rules too aggressively. It feels like all of our attempts to bring the page up to par are  futile because you have already decided that the page is going to get deleted and are not interested in improving it.  As each issue comes up I have been trying to become acquainted with the rules so I can resolve it but there is an awful lot to learn and at this point it doesn't seem worth it.
 * Regardless of what happens with this page, I hope you guys will step back and examine whether or not you've gotten a little trigger-happy with the delete key. The high standards you enforce are what make wikipedia so great, and I am definitely not encouraging you to compromise those, but it's possible to go too far.  I believe I can speak for the guys who started this page, and they are definitely not spammers or advertisers.  This page was built and edited in good faith by people who value wikipedia's high standards, and I don't think the Regular WP Editors have treated it that way.173.51.29.215 (talk) 21:23, 9 January 2010 (UTC) [Oops -- I am 169.234.124.26, editing from another location.]
 * I don't doubt their good faith. I do doubt their judgment and understanding of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.  The content of the article is not the issue; its subject's notability is.  The inability on the part of anyone to come up with reliable, detailed, mainstream sources on the subject (which would then establish its notability) shows that the decision must be Delete. Moogwrench (talk) 22:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the accusations of spamming -- I understand the concern about notability. Like I said before, I think it meets criteria, but only barely.  I don't think we can overwhelmingly demonstrate notability, and given the momentum of the delete crowd it doesn't seem worth it to keep trying to improve the page since it's probably going to get deleted no matter what we do at this point.173.51.29.215 (talk) 22:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment added a link for the canvassing.  TheWeak Willed   (T * G) 21:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment Thanks for the catch. I suspected something like this earlier, which is why I added not a ballot some time ago. I want to, again, remind everyone that this is not a vote, this is a discussion and that the fact that you have a username or are anonymous has no impact on the validity of your arguments. So long as you make a sensible, policy-based, well-thought-out comment in this discussion, it will be given its due consideration. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB, and the attempt at outside canvassing is downright pitiful. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  21:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment User "canvassing" is a newbie who has no business doing so, nor participating in the article creation for this site, FYI.  No one there takes him seriously.  Medusa1122 (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Click on the Google news link up top. See all the results?  Cnet reviews it.  That's notable.   D r e a m Focus  23:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Correction, a blogger at CNET's WebWare blog reviewed it and offered some of his personal perspectives. Not the same thing.  If you look at the other sources they are are trivial mentions (i.e. subject is mentioned only briefly in the article, not in detail as is required by WP:WEB). Moogwrench (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have actually found three mentions of it on CNET, but am having trouble distinguishing between CNET-based blogs and a CNET news article that counts as RS... maybe some regular editors could have a look?173.51.29.215 (talk) 00:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * mentions it in a webware news article, it having plenty of coverage and praise. Googling for fluther.com on site:cnet.com shows 48 results, and searching for just fluther gives 147.  That one link though is sufficient enough.   D r e a m Focus  02:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The reason why you see "praise" is because it is opinion. It is a blog (look down at the bottom of the posting). See WP:RS. Even if it were an RS, "one link" isn't enough.  Multiple RSs are required to establish notability for web content, per WP:WEB. Moogwrench (talk) 07:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep Canvassing is not good practice, but doesn't affect the article itself. I have slight concerns that the wording is vaguely promotional, but it's hard to avoid totally and would get ironed out by independent editors fairly soon. There's just about enough referencing for me. I am a regular Wikipedia editor with no connection to Fluther (but I do, not as Peridon, to another place where answers are sought). As to the objecters to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, I would remind visitors that this is our field and our ball, and therefore our rules. Peridon (talk) 23:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that the NPOV issues can be addressed in due time; they are not significant enough to warrant deletion right now. However, the issue of notability still remains, and I haven't seen any significant evidence presented that suggests that guidelines are met, as I mentioned above. The only sources that have been mentioned are either not significant or not reliable. This is a severe issue which needs to be addressed before the article can be determined fit for inclusion. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep IT seems to haver enough coverage in reliable sources in GNews and the web in general. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Which ones, precisely? Moogwrench (talk) 00:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. At the heart of this debate are the reliability of sources. None of the previous editors have found anything. If you have...provide it. Szzuk (talk) 08:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)*
 * Moogwrench points out that the Brown alumni magazine (http://www.brownalumnimagazine.com/content/view/2075/40/) probably does meet criteria. I believe at least one of the CNET mentions counts, but as I mentioned above I am having trouble distinguishing between the CNET blogs and news sources and hoped a seasoned editor would be willing to help out.  Here is a list of CNET mentions:
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10125728-2.html
 * http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-19512_7-9751141-233.html?tag=mncol;title
 * http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9740750-2.html?tag=mncol;title
 * http://news.cnet.com/8300-17939_109-2-0.html?keyword=qna 169.234.3.145 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — 169.234.3.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I said the Brown alumni source was arguable. It has an editorial board but it is not exactly a major publication. I don't know what other people think. Seriously folks, if you can't come up with at least one major reliable news source that treats the subject in detail, do you honestly think it's notable enough for an entire encylopedia article?  If/when it becomes notable enough we can write an article on it. What's the rush? Moogwrench (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Response "Josh Lowensohn writes for Webware.com, CNET's blog about Web applications and services. E-mail Josh, or follow him on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/Josh." This is your first one, and I interpret it as meaning he is an official writer not a casual commenter. No 2: "Jason Parker writes software reviews and features for Windows, Mac, and iPhone. If he learned to dance, it would make him a fabled "quadruple threat," but we can't get him to do it." This also looks somewhat as if he has an official status, but I'm less sure. No 3: Andrew Mager looks reasonably official, unlike the commenters at the end of his article. No 4: Lowensohn again, and I've found he is (an) Assistant Editor at Webware.com. Got the hang of this now. No 2 Jason Parker is an official CNET writer, and rated as Senior associate editor. No 3 now doesn't look so official, as I can't find a profile for him. 1, 2 and 4 are the ones that appear official. Peridon (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * But are "official writers" necessarily RS? 169.234.3.145 (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — 169.234.3.145 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * I'd say as RS as a writer in any newspaper or magazine. A lot of articles are sent in to magazines, and newspapers have 'correspondents' who are paid on a piecework basis - and they count as RS, don't they? These writers at CNET appear to me to be staff writers, rather than just posters of comments. Open to correction by a CNET expert. Peridon (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Remember that the key is editorial oversight of CNET, not whether they are an "official writer" or not. If CNET doesn't exercise editorial control over their content, they are essentially self-published, even if the site is sponsored by CNET. Read WP:RS -- it says that a newspaper's interactive column (which is sometimes call a "blog" by the newspaper) must still be "subject to the newspaper's full editorial control."  Be aware that per these comments from regular CNET blogger Josh Wolf, that CNET does not exercise editorial control over copy or headlines for the blog content of its news site, thus they are not usable per WP:RS. Moogwrench (talk) 19:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - But the lack of editorial oversight wrt a single blogger does not indicate to me that none of the blog-style writing on CNET has editorial oversight. Specifically, the WebWare blog linked above seems to be written by a team of writers and editors, suggesting to me that at the very least they monitor each others' work.  Collaboration by a team of writers and editors fits my definition of editorial oversight... what do you think? 128.200.52.17 (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC) — 128.200.52.17 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment – A team of writers does not imply anything other than a common focus.  Editorial oversight provides independent review of the content.   Something that is difficult when one is an author.   ttonyb  (talk) 19:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Put simply blogs are almost never permitted sources. And this isn't an almost never scenario. Szzuk (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:N as it hasn't recieved significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Also note I saw this debate being canvassed at another site besides the one mentioned at the top of the page.  Them  From  Space  22:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.