Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogged.com
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 02:53, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Article was speedy tagged and contested. Original author and tagger have written comment on talk page. Tag read an article about a web site, blog, online forum, webcomic, podcast, online game, or similar web content that does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject. Procedural submission. --VS talk 03:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete can't find any notability and the article reads like advertising. some of the info is obviously untrue. --neonwhite user page talk 05:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 13:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless improved significantly. I don't see any sign of bad faith here but I can't see notability either. The article has a lot of discussion of social networking and blogging in general (which might be an original research problem as it is unreferenced) but very little about blogged.com itself so notability is not really asserted. As I see it, the site is a search engine and directory for blogs. If so, there seems to be nothing obvious to distinguish it from other sites of that type. I did try Googling "blogged.com" and got a lot of irrelevant hits due to the name being a substring of some other website names and due to its member blogs linking back to it. I didn't find any reputable sources covering it. I guess there might have been something buried further down the list but I didn't find it. At best that can be considered inconclusive. (Note: I am the person who originally tagged it for speedy deletion) --DanielRigal (talk) 17:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.