Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oilogosphere


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:00, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Oilogosphere

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Neologism. Page creator makes claim that it has received coverage with this name. However, none of the sources on the page are more than passing mentions. In order to pass the notability requirement they must receive substantial coverage about the subject in multiple reliable sources. DJSasso (talk) 16:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions.  —DJSasso (talk) 16:18, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - The sources in there now are not "passing mentions"; in each case, the Oilogosphere is the primary subject of the article. Here's a blog entry from this month from the Edmonton Journal (per WP:SPS: "Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professional journalists or are professionals in the field on which they write and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control.").  And not that this is conclusive, but the term gets 16,200 ghits even when the search is formulated to exclude the Wikipedia article and mirrors. Steve Smith (talk) 17:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Reference one lists no author on the article therefore not a RS, reference two is about a writers experiences and not about this subject really reference three is just a list of blogs that could be considered to be part of the subject buts its not actually about the subject, reference four mentions the subject but doesn't actually talk about it as a whole, reference five only mentions oilogosphere in passing, reference six and seven do not mention the oilogosphere and are personal blogs and as such not a reliable source. So explain to me which sources are significantly about the oilogosphere? Other than the one source you mention now which comes from a single source, there has been no signiicant coverage from multiple sources. Googlehits also are not an indication of notability. Especially when talking about blogs because the blogs themselves will boost the numbers. -DJSasso (talk) 17:51, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Um, reference one lists an author's name very prominently (and is significantly about the Oilogosphere). Reference three is plainly about the Oilogosphere: when the subject is a collection of blogs, discussing the various blogs in the Oilogosphere, as that reference does, is one way of discussing the subject. Reference four discusses one aspect of the subject in detail. References five through seven do not contribute to notability, since they're from personal blogs, but are appropriate to the material they reference, per WP:SPS. Look, there's plainly room for disagreement between reasonable people about whether this coverage is sufficient for WP:N, but your suggestion that the topic has been the subject of no substantial coverage, as you are doing, is ludicrous. Steve Smith (talk) 17:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as reference 1 goes, the reference on the page mentions an author, but there is no author listed on the actual blog article it links to. As for reference three, no the subject of this wiki article is the Oilogosphere not the blogs individually. This talks about the inividual blogs but does not have any commentary about the oilogosphere as a whole. Reference four again talks about a single blog site, not the oilogosphere as a whole. It has long been established that a group might be notable when its individual members are not and the other way around as well. This reference does nothing to proove the notability of the Oilogosphere, just of the site its talking about. So far there is a single reference (two if you are lenient on what you consider reliable on reference 1) from a single source ie The Edmonton Journal. -DJSasso (talk) 18:03, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Huh - on reference 1, the print version (it's a newspaper article, not a blog post) certainly listed David Staples as the author. I'm not sure why the online version doesn't. As for the rest, I'll leave it to other AFD participants to judge. Steve Smith (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've changed the link for reference 1 to one that does mention the author's name. Steve Smith (talk) 18:23, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is better then, but we still need a couple references from sources other than the edmonton journal. Preferably outside Edmonton. -DJSasso (talk) 18:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * FWIW, CanWest papers routinely strip the byline out of articles after a period of time for some reason. I wouldn't discount a source for that reason alone. Resolute 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. I can rather see both sides of this argument so far, but even if it is mostly local coverage, the Edmonton Journal is a major paper, and refs 1 and 3 put it just onside of WP:GNG in my view.  Within the hockey blogging community itself the Oilogosphere is well known.  Certainly one can hope the nascent Saddlesphere gains similar fame in the future.  ;) Resolute 19:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Not the hugest deal to me, but local notability is usually considered not enough, which is why local politicians don't qualify for articles even though they get lots of coverage in their local newspaper such as the Edmonton Journal. -DJSasso (talk) 12:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Referenced by a major news paper and there are other refs to.  Kyle  1278  03:43, 19 March 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.