Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Valleywag


 * 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 of the debate was keep `'mikka (t) 00:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Valleywag
Non-notable blog. I PRODded it, but the tag was removed, therefore I bring it here. User:Zoe|(talk) 01:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per above --WillMak050389 01:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * keep It has reached page view parity with established Silicon Valley publications like Red Herring Magazine in a matter of months.
 * Keep - it is definitely notable in the web community. AOL Exec Jason Calacanis continually references it in his blog, and Technorati ranks it as "Rank: 476 (3,381 links from 1,371 sites)" which ain't too shabby - considering they claim to rank over 43.7 million sites and 2.5 billion links. --Cvp1 02:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - Definitely notable in Silicon Valley. --Arnaudh 02:50, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Very notable, it is one of Gawker Media's. Geedubber 03:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep mention of WP:WEB, despite size like this. Is good for me. Yanksox 03:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep per WP:WEB (and the Cvp1's Technorati adduction) and Geedubber. Joe 04:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The fact that it's a Gawker blog should make a big difference here. Jeffrey McManus 06:18, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Yeah, keep the entry, but the fact that the Jalopnik entry got killed makes me think that either somebody had something against Gawker (or just the ham-handed attempt Jalopnik made to give Wikipedia the business about their status for inclusion.) But frankly, if blogs are going to be included in Wikipedia, I think that Gawker blogs should most definitely be included. The company is significant, whether one loves them or loathes them.
 * Delete nn. I also see no reason for the Gawker Media article to exist, since it's all the owner talking about what a great businessman he is, but that's another question for later.  Tychocat 12:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This guy promotes the rumors. And that's a fact.  We need to know this shit, else we buy into the BS we're being told.  Everyone has the right to an opinion.  Obviously (?), this site is large enough for a Wikipedia description.  Stop squelching the revolution. Approve!!! Keep!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 131.107.0.71 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 10 Jun 2006  (UTC)
 * Note that the above anon contributor vandalized my comments at the nomination at the top of this page. User:Zoe|(talk) 20:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep This is a gossip site for people in Silicon Valley. If there are going to be articles about the National Enquirer and Talk Soup, then we deserve to know about what's happening by far more influential people.  Initiael 22:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hilarious....you 'online librarians' are really making it up as you go along, aren't you? Just a few months ago, you refused to acknowledge any blogs, now you want to ban the ones that you feel 'aren't notable'.

Course you define the 'notable' ones by doing a GOOGLE search for links (Technorati?!? What's that?). No wonder your traffic is starting to level off, and your page views are down.
 * The above was posted by . User:Zoe|(talk) 23:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep Blogs are becoming influential in popular culture and this one is widely read. Barbarasamson 19:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * User's only edit. User:Zoe|(talk) 23:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep I was skeptical but the Alexa stats are to drool over. StuffOfInterest 15:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Technorati and Alexa both dicate reasonable notability Computerjoe 's talk 16:20, 15 June 2006 (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.