Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summation.net


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Summation.net

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I believe this fails WP:GNG and Notability_(web) Kevin (talk) 05:37, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Weak Keep I spent a few minutes looking to see if the blog had won any awards, which is a clear guide to notability. I could not find any. However, this was partly because there are so many citations of summation.net in google search results from other blogs/newspapers it is difficult to sort through them all. I suppose the answer is what matters more, quantity of citations in other medias, or quality of those cites. Some might argue merging with the blog's owner Auren Hoffman, but the issue there is that the content of the blog is wide ranging and does not appear relate to the personal or business life of Hoffman. This is not a personal blog in which the blog owner talks about what they did today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 12:41, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment I'm pretty sure that most blog awards would not be an indication of notability, because they are often awarded by sources that would fail WP:N and WP:RS themselves. The fact that a blog is occasionally cited by other blogs definitely does not convey notability.  Honestly, I'm pretty tempted to AfD Auren Hoffman as well, since a quick glance suggests that he doesn't meet WP:Notability (People). Kevin (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete As simply not notable. Verification of any notability can't be found.  While number of readers is never a metric to keep or delete an article, 12,000 readers is relatively small, so I wouldn't expect many reliable sources to be writing about them due to their "reach".  Dennis Brown (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - per comment above.  maucho  eagle   02:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete - no notablility, article tells you nothing. I spent some time trawling through the archives on this site and found noting really meritorious. --Whiteguru (talk) 09:29, 15 April 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.