Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MLIA


 * 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 per WP:BEFORE, WP:HEY. Skomorokh 23:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

MyLifeIsAverage

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable website lacking GHits or substance and with no GNEWs hits of substance. Speedy tag was removed by SPA. Fails WP:WEB. ttonyb1 (talk) 17:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC) *Delete - While I did find two reliable sources that focus on this website, that is all I could find and there should be more coverage of this website from sources to make this notable. Not to mention this article is written like an advertisement. Mgmvegas (talk) 19:42, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- ( X!  ·  talk )  · @812  · 18:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough sources found for notability now and the writing for the article is better. Mgmvegas (talk) 15:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe Merge to FMyLife. MLIA is a parody/spinoff of FML, so it makes some sense to discuss it there.  --Chris Johnson (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom --Marmite twigs (talk) 09:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided by prove that MLIA (MyLifeIsAverage) passes the notability guidelines. The Omaha.com article provides decent background about this website, while the TechCrunch article (published by the Washington Post) cements this website's notability. Both articles provide in-depth coverage for MLIA. This article could be merged to FMyLife, but in both of sources mentioned above, MLIA had coverage that was independent of FMyLife. That's why I believe that MLIA should be kept, not merged — certainly not deleted. Cunard (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep or Merge The 2 sources uncovered by Mgmvegas unfortunately are enough to prove notability: multiple reliable sources with non-trivial coverage. WP:RUBBISH. --Cybercobra (talk) 02:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The article is no longer promotional, since I rewrote it two days ago. I've also uncovered a third source, this blog from the Wall Street Journal. This blog is a reliable source per Reliable sources: "Note that otherwise reliable news sources--for example, the website of a major news organization--that happens to publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be considered to be equally reliable as if it were published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format of a classic news story. However, the distinction between "opinion pieces" and news should be considered carefully."" This is certainly not an "opinion piece", so it further establishes MLIA's notability. Cunard (talk) 04:28, 11 August 2009 (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.