Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consumerist (blog)

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 keep, early close per WP:SNOW. A Train^talk 13:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consumerist (blog)

Was originally nominated for Speedy deletion using db-web by RHaworth on March 27, 2007, but this was improperly removed by the article's author within one minute of the speedy tag being placed. The article remained untouched until today, when the subject in question encouraged readers to expand the article. Article reads like an advertisement, and borders on self-promotion. WP:CSD A7 still applies to the article in the current form, and it still fails to adequately assert the notability or importance of the subject. The only possible notability of the subject is that they have been interviewed by the New York Times on consumer topics, but even then it's a thin assertion of notability as the paper would no doubt interview or talk with thousands of people each year as sources for it's editorial content. Thewinchester ^(talk) 02:28, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. NYT interview is enough for notability right there, but the 14 Google news references over the last month alone expand on that quite well. Easily meets standards. --badlydrawnjeff talk 02:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. definitely notable website, at the top of it's niche, has influenced the corporate policy and effected change in countless small companies/situations, and in several higher-profile situations (such as the Wal-Mart Totenkopf). Definitely a strong keep AdamJacobMuller 02:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - per above. Definately notable blog. Some cleanup and additional referencing is required, those self-references just don't cut it. Luke! 03:39, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep in spite of extreme dislike for its method of editing WP. If its N after all, so be it.DGG 05:09, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep More sources, if desired, to be found in this Google News archive search - there appear to be plenty. JavaTenor 05:46, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, and that expansion request seems a) good faith and b) lighthearted. As the subject is clearly notable expansion is warranted. --Dhartung | Talk 05:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per above Computerjoe's talk 07:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per all. Maxamegalon2000 12:26, 13 April 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.