Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QT's Diary


 * 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 No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 22:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

QT's Diary

 * Delete because the article's subject has dubious notability and contains assertions that constitute original research. For example, it makes claims that are not -- and could not be -- backed up (such as calling QT's Diary "one of the most imaginative blogs to have ever surfaced on the Internet", making generalizations about the feelings of readers of the blog. and theorizing that the blog may have been a hoax perpetrated by Quentin Tarantino himself.) In addition, the extended narrative of the blog's existence is not written in a style appropriate for an encyclopedia, and should, at a minimum, be considered for clean-up. (The statements previously mentioned were revised by another editor.)Skleinjung 19:49, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Cleanup, though notablility is slightly tenuous. If cleanup not possible, relist. --Andy Saunders 20:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, has been a recent subject of media attention.[[Image:Weather rain.png]] Soothing R  10:23, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking over the notability guidelines for web content again, I still fail to see how this page meets them. There is no case for it meeting requirements 2 or 3. In addition, the article fails to provide proof that what it pertains to is the "subject of multiple non-trivial published works" via links or specific references. If we discount blogs and message board posts (as the notability guidelines require), there is but a single online source I could find that even mentions the blog (http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-5325241.html) -- I still have not located the Time magazine article mentioned on the page. While the recent cleanup edit was a vast improvement, there are still a number of statements in the article that are not sourced and cannot be verified, such as: the number of hits ('over a million visitors'), quotes by people related to the article (Quentin thinking it was "funny", Bumble Ward's reaction to the blog), the "unnamed Canadian website design company" being asked to produce a new website for the blog, and the dubious claims that this blog was 'one of the most-read' and 'one of the most imaginative' blogs to have ever surfaced. If it is decided that the page should be kept, then these -- and other similar -- statements can be removed, but I do not think that there will be very much verifiable content left afterwards. Skleinjung 22:15, 30 January 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.