Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shakesville (blog)


 * 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. A lack of significant coverage in reliable sources means that the subject does not meet the primary notability criterion for inclusion in the encyclopedia. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Shakesville (blog)

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

Delete doesn't seem to have achieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources. I guess its claim to fame is that one Carnegie-Mellon study assessed that it was the 37th most informative blog. Not enough. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Not enough coverage in reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, doesn't appear to be enough third-party coverage, and 37th isn't that impressive, really. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:14, 23 May 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.