Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scary Mommy


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Scary Mommy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Borderline advertising for a blog of questionable notability. Previously deleted for being promotional. Almost entirely sourced to the blog itself. Some news coverage found, but this is more about the author giving opinions, not coverage of the blog itself. MikeWazowski (talk) 17:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC) I changed the wording of the article and made it less "opinionated" and it is no longer "almost entirely sourced to the blog itself" even though it wasn't in the first place. This post sites facts and links to credible news sites. The evidence of notability is in the links where the blog has been featured. Which there are numerous. I could add more to add more notability, but then it is "promotional." Also it was not previously deleted for being promotional, it was nominated for deletion. Racheleigh13 (talk) 17:09, 29 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete No evidence of notability. In my opinion very close indeed to the borderline for speedy deletion as spam. JamesBWatson (talk) 17:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - the article was previously  deleted per G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion). As it  currently  stands, the article does more to  promote the blog's author rather than the bolg itself. Whatever, or wherever the blog author has written, any  notability  s/he may  or may  not  have, is not  inherited by  the blog. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:49, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

This article was never deleted. I have only put it up once, therefore it has never been deleted. It has been nominated for speedy deletion due to promotion. I took out most things about the blogs author, it focuses on the blog itself (even though anyone who read the blog would realize that the blog is about the author of the blog). All of the notability the author of the blog has gained has come from the blog. But I have re-edited it again so that it focuses mainly on the blog. Racheleigh13 (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * According to this, it was deleted. According to this, a Jill Smokler article was deleted as an unambiguous copyright violation. MikeWazowski (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the Jill Smokler page was deleted for copyright violation. I had rights from her to use the exact wording, but instead of her giving consent I figured it would be easier just to paraphrase everything. I changed it to Scary Mommy instead of Jill because the blog is Scary Mommy. But neither of them were erased per G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) to my knowledge. I only posted this article once. Racheleigh13 (talk) 1:45, 31 October 2011 — Racheleigh13 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Speedy delete per G11. &mdash;  Abhishek  Talk 15:13, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete - Coverage about the blog is not very significant. This Baltimore Sun article does provides some coverage.  I'd say that an article on Jill Smokler might be sustainable by reliable sources as the Baltimore Sun article is one piece of significant coverage about her.  But I'd caution that those with a conflict of interest should be very careful about writing the article, and that copying material from Smokler's web site, even with permission, is likely a non-starter. -- Whpq (talk) 16:22, 2 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment - The external links in the body of the piece need to be removed in the now seemingly unlikely eventuality that this piece is retained. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 4 November 2011 (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.