Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt and that


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Matt and that
Blog, no evidence of notability given. --W(t) 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Did you read it? There are a couple items of notability about this site. --Hawkeye216 16:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. An Alexa rank over a million doesn't support "massive popularity". There are millions of blogs on the web. This is one of them. Fan1967 16:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

You are assuming Alexa is a great way of ranking website popularity? Go read the Wikipedia Alexa page to further educate yourself. Additionally, if you don't like that single line about popularity, then remove it. It shouldn't count against the overall validity of the article. -- Hawkeye216 12:09, 17 March 2006 (EST)


 * delete not-notable. Bucketsofg 17:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep Keep this site. I too have found original content on this site. Definitely notable.  Crumbles 17:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment this user's only contributions are to this AfD. JoshuaZ 18:14, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment JoshuaZ has no life. Just a comment. Crumbles 18:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep I vote to keep this site as well. Hawkeye216 17:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that Hawkeye216 is the creator of the article. User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No indication of notability. JoshuaZ 18:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * keep keep. Anonymous 18:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Note The above comment was posted by, who also posted the insult to JoshuaZ above that was signed as "Crumbles" at 18:25. Looks like the sockpuppets are out. Fan1967 18:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hawkeye216 It is not acceptable to edit or remove anyone else's comments in an AfD discussion. Fan1967 19:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The article contains two reference links to outside sources about the website/blog, what more are you looking for? - Hawkeye216 19:30, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Importance, notability.--TM 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom and socks. --TM 19:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Apparently unless a web page was singlehandedly responsible for the fall of the Roman Empire, it isn't "notable" enough for you guys. Jesus. --Hawkeye216 19:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Google News comes up with the same phenomenon. This fails our website notability criteria. Capitalistroadster 00:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC) Try searching for "mattandthat" Einstein. --Hawkeye216 02:18, 18 March 2006 (UTC) õ
 * Pretty much, yeah. Delete, nn blog.  User:Zoe|(talk) 21:43, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. While there are some outside sources, they may not meet our verifiability criteria. A Google search for "Matt and that" comes up with people using the phrase "Matt and that" rather than references to this blog at least on the front page see.
 * Delete as non-notable per all non-sock votes above. -- Kinu t /c  01:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, just deal with it.  Dei z io  01:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete nn vanity. Eivindt@c 09:31, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:10, 21 March 2006 (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.