Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The J*Lu 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. Michig (talk) 07:11, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The J*Lu Blog

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Might meet notability requirements but as written is overly promotional. Eeekster (talk) 07:11, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I've cleaned up most of the promotional speak, but I have to say that I doubt seriously that this will pass notability guidelines. I'll see what I can find, but so far there's nothing to show that this is particularly notable. It should be noted that this was previously deleted yesterday, probably under A7 or G11.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:02, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that the user Venemiami is most likely the blog creator, as evidenced by the fact that this username and the username for this YouTube account are identical and openly states that it's the blog creator. Admins might want to see how often this has been created and maybe salt to avoid recreation.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. This has no notability per Wikipedia guidelines. I can't find any coverage of this blog in any reliable sources and the one award it won isn't particularly notable enough to give notability in the slightest, let alone give enough notability to warrant keeping it on that basis alone. This might be speedyable and I'll try seeing if I can A7 it.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 08:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy on account of the award (it checked out). SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:39, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Eh, figured that might be just dubiously notable enough to keep it from dying a fast death. At least this way when it's deleted via AfD it can potentially be speedied in other ways.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 10:56, 13 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, as it fails WP:WEB. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:40, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Zero or near-zero indication of wp:notability. North8000 (talk) 14:09, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I believe I was the original speedy nominator for non-notable web content.  I agree that the award was given by the organization cited but I don't see the award as particularly notable nor the awarding organization as especially expert in assessing web content; this could be log-rolling between related organizations for all I can tell.  Ubelowme U  Me  15:07, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I declined the speedy because A7 only requires a claim of notability be made, and a real award seems to do that. If the award had been a fabrication, the article would have died on the spot, no question about it.  I also have no doubt that this article will ultimately be executed, but it's going the slow route rather than the quick route.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 20:04, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:16, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, not notable per WP:WEB, the single source is pretty weak. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Any chance of this closing early per WP:SNOW? There's about 5 good delete arguments now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 12:53, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy deletion has already been declined. Better to let it run the full course, and then if this ever resurfaces, we can speedy it as G4.  SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:07, 16 October 2012 (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.