Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/You Better Believe It


 * 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 delete.  Sango  123   03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

You Better Believe It
Delete This article was created to describe a personal blog. It includes links to the site counter and other assorted information. The page does not meet criteria of Wikipedia Notability Criteria, appears to be vanity. I don't believe a personal weblog is relevant to WP. Alphachimp  talk  04:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * YOU BETTER DELETE IT! 6 Ghits, painfully non-notable and only one blog on Blogspot. Jammo (SM247) 05:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-notable blog of a non-notable person, WP:BIO refers.  (aeropagitica)    (talk)   05:31, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.-- blue 520  06:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete not notable/spam.-- Andeh 06:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I love Jammo (SM247)'s quote! DELETE    ''Em-jay-es  06:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Coredesat 07:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete dattebayo. Danny Lilithborne 08:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:WEB or WP:BIO.--Isotope23 12:35, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, so completely non-notable a blog, that I almost fell asleep reading the article. It was only an unflinching dedication to properly examining material on AFD that kept me conscious. I gave that time so that casual Wikipedia editors would be spared the unspeakable tedium of running across it. Do not make my sacrifice a waste. Per WP:WEB and WP:BIO. - Motor (talk) 13:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- Xyra  e  l  T 17:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete. It is a well-written article, and it does no harm. It is not a vanity article, since no superlatives are used and careful attention was given to detail and objectivity. The article was written in response to a growing number of visitors to the weblog. While it is true that it might only be one weblog on Blogger, it does seem to be a popular one. My question is this: will keeping the article (e.g. not deleting it per the requests of Alphachimp et al., somehow inhibit Wikipedia's servers? If not, then I see it as serving two purposes. On the one hand, it informs the Wikipedia populace of an example of a personal weblog. As well, it encourages support and participation in the sharing of information, which is the purpose of Wikipedia.
 * Alphachimp, that's not cool, man. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.24.176 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: I would have posted the AFD notice no matter who wrote it. It might help to check out WP:NN for some guidelines on notability.  I'm sorry for the hassle, but WP is not a place for personal vanity/personal blogs WP:NOT.  -- Alphachimp   talk  05:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, vanity. It's not well-written when 1/3 the prose has nothing to do with the blog itself. The author is trying so hard to come up with something to say about the blog it needs to go into explanations of Blogger and Adsense to fill space. hateless 00:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete vanity. &mdash; Khoikhoi 02:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Pure vanity articlle. Fails to meet sufficient guidelines for WP:WEB as well.--Auger Martel 08:08, 17 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.