Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violent Acres


 * 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. Kevin (talk) 02:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Violent Acres

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable blog. Recent contested prod. Blargh29 (talk) 03:17, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't look like it was ever prodded; speedys were attempted though. --Cyber cobra (talk) 03:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It was deleted via prod & then restored per a request on my talk page. When undeleting, I didn't restore the revision where the prod was added. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment... well, it certainly needs a rewrite and sourcing to show notability. Seems that it got a minor write up by Fox News about one of the funnier postings. Following Fox's link, I read the posting. Hilarious. Surprised this has not gotten more press. Then it's part of an article from Seattle Times that was reprinted in the Memphis Commercial Appeal. Haven't done much looking past that. Too Busy chuckling.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 19:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - This does indeed appear to be a popular blog (top 100K websites in US overall), but popularity doesn't equate with notability. GNews finds only 2 mentions, neither significant.  A Lexis Nexis search reveals about half a dozen more sources, but unfortunately they all appear to either just repeat a joke or say "check out this funny blog."  The Seattle Times article is perhaps the most significant source of the bunch, and it is extremely minimal.  I would probably give this one a pass if one significant source could be found, but as it stands now there is nothing with which to write an article. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete No significant sources. Miami33139 (talk) 06:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. - Achissden (talk) 01:24, 9 December 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.