Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sneeze

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. Arguments to delete outweight those to keep. Our rules on verifiability are non-negotiable. Proto::► 14:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Sneeze

The Sneeze (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Nonnotable blog. Cited sources assert notability, but don't really show it. Alexa ranking below 90,000. Contested speedy. NawlinWiki 03:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep, but the article should be rewritten in a more encyclopedic way. Alexa ranking is 80,665 (lower it is, better it is - I also have to say that Alexa rank wipe out operating systems different from microsoft and browser different from Internet Explorer, so it's not a good index), google page rank is 6/10 (net's average, according to UrlTrends, is 2/10 --> [1]. The website The Truth Liad Bear, has a 7/10 pagerank but it's not in Alexa 100,000 (which means n/a). by Snowolf (talk) on 03:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep All it needs is a major makeover. It appears to be notable, but it does need a huge clean-up. Ganfon 03:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep I am rather new to making pages at wikipedia, as soon as i figure it out, i will clean it up. i'm sure somewhere in the 8000 daily readers there is a wikipedian besides me. I just started it, and i plan to finish it.Cherryeater987 04:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Cleanup Sorry for the tough love, but, ugh, this is one of the most poorly written articles I've ever seen. Read through the Manual of Style please. Thanks. --Wafulz 05:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, one mention in PC Magazine in 2005 is one (1) WP:RS, and I could find no others. Technorati rank is 1577, which isn't really impressive, nor is TTLB ecosystem ranking (171) below 100. Alexa and Google stats presented above (80,000? 6/10?) are just a joke. It's a cute personal blog, but fails WP:WEB. --Dhartung | Talk 05:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete one mention in PC magazine is not enough, the number of hits a website gets does little to assert notability.--Daniel J. Leivick 06:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete, lacks multiple, independent reliable sources. Recury 15:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete WP:RS /Blaxthos 18:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Redirect to Fred Ott's Sneeze (film). Come on. I doubt anyone typing in "The Sneeze" as a search term is going to be looking for some guy's blog. Wavy G 19:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unless editor learns how to bring it up to snuff instead of relying on the other 8000 readers. TonyTheTiger 01:01, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Hey.. give it a chance. It's a very entertaining and relatively longstanding blog with enough readers to warrant an entry. when did wikipedia become such an exclusive organization? I'm trying my best to learn how to make the page better, but i have little time and skill. FYI, i am NOT the site's author. Cherryeater987 01:12, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Does not seem to have real world notability. GassyGuy 05:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep So Wikipedia should keep stuff like this but a blog with 7000 visits a day should get the boot? It may be poorly written by Wikipedia standards, but it's pretty short so it's easily fixed. Unmitigated Success 16:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment naming other articles that you think should be deleted does nothing to assert the notability of of this article. 7000 Visits a day doesn't do much either we need verifiable sources. --Daniel J. Leivick 17:27, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Last time i checked, most encyclopedias don't need a "You must be this famous to enter" sign. 7000 people. hey! that's a lot. that's REGULAR VISITORS. filtering out one time visitors, according to the author's counters. An encyclopedia should be a comprehensive index of information. and by adding this page, thereby making it more comprehensive, i and all the members of the sneeze are helping out. Not hindering. as long as it contains information about the page and author, it should stay. and even at its current undeveloped stage, it contains information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cherryeater987 (talk • contribs) 03:57, 20 January 2007 (UTC).

• It doesn't have to be "famous," perhaps, but it does have to meet some basic guidelines, else there'd be no way to delete any article. Also, you don't have to start every comment with "keep." GassyGuy 08:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep it. The TV show South Park is valid on Wikipedia. The Sneeze is no less worthy a venue for entertainment or satire.--B2k 19:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that something exists does not mean it automatically gets a wikipedia article. South Park is notable, and its article establishes its notability. Wavy G 04:32, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Btw, check the hamper for missing socks; this is this user's first edit. Wavy G 04:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep - Its visitor stats are not that bad. Killroy4 11:29, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Neutral - the site appears to have a pretty strong presence, but more reference and evidence of notability should be added in order for it to stay. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 18:57, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Precedence and popularity is NO reason to advertise a blog on Wikipedia, per WP:NOT. Discount major sockpuppetry.--WaltCip 01:19, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Who is advertising? i am in no way affiliated with the blog or its author, and stand no benefit by this being here, i was just trying to do a service and make wikipedia more complete.Cherryeater987 22:28, 23 January 2007 (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.