Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks


 * 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. Doesn't seem notable to me either but the references available confer that it is so it's a keeper. (non-admin closure) treelo  radda  00:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The "Blog" of "Unnecessary" Quotation Marks
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Only a "brief" flurry of "info" after it got a Yahoo! "pick". Doesn't "seem" very "notable" at all, what with "only" two "sources". Ten Pound "Hammer" and his "otters" • ("Broken" clamshells • Otter chirps • "HELP") 18:06, 9 October 2008 ("UTC")
 * Delete. Damn right! Plrk (talk) 18:20, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per sources offered. Delete as the brief flurry of coverage has died out. Though one might argue that notability is not temporary, as the nom points out... this article lack sufficient WP:RS to show a true notability.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 18:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * "Delete" - A not particularly "notable" blog that gives itself to obvious "jokes" in any discussion. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:32, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment The blog itself is not notable. The annoying practice of unnecessary use of quotation marks on signs ("Please" Pull to Next Pump) is something that many have noticed, and its referred to (as is the link to the blog) in Quotation mark, so "even" a merge isn't necessary.Mandsford (talk) 19:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - per significant coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Peregrine_Fisher. Owen&times; &#9742;  20:08, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep--sorry Hammer, and your otters, but I believe in the blog's notability, even its purpose. Drmies (talk) 03:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, a one of blip in interest on a slow news day does not make this notable - all because something appears in a newspaper once, doesn't make it encylopedic.Yobmod (talk) 08:12, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not news nor for processing news stories, the website itself fails WP:WEB as well as the majority of  notability points, it is unencyclopedic and an unlikely search term. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - Sources span over one year, so it's not a flash in the pan news story. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  18:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Two of the sources are only passing or non-significant mentions; only the AJC would give notability by itself. So it's notable. seresin ( ¡? )  00:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, covered by the Los Angeles Times, Atlanta Journal Constitution, the Washington Herald, The Washington Post, Salon and featured on Yahoo!. --Pixelface (talk) 00:39, 13 October 2008 (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.