Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Every Day Should Be Saturday
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. --Coredesat 07:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Every Day Should Be Saturday
nn college football blog, main claim of notability is that is was mentioned in passing by a San Jose newspaper, which isn't enough for notability. Biggspowd 22:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete. Outside the Alexa top 100,000 with a page rank so insignificant, the site doesn't bother tracking it. Consequentially 00:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Keep. Prominent site in the college football world; Wikipedia junkies might not understand this world, a world that consists of people who leave their computers from time to time to interact with other people regarding things like beer and university athletics. Don't be afraid of that which you don't understand, Wikipedia nerds. 24.124.69.9 01:01, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the good ol' "you are nerds with no lives" argument. Such enlightening and insightful reasoning you have there. Ironic, however, that you tell us to live in the real world, yet you're not showing us any proof from said real world that this site is talked about there. That's why we're deleting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Make no mistake, us college football fans have odd lives as well. Our fandom, however, tends more towards the actual interaction with humans than it does towards false demagoguery. What, pray tell, constitutes "proof"? New media and blogs by their very nature are often not cited by mainstream media sources; that does not, however, make them non-notable. 24.124.69.9 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, it does. Notability, according to Wikipedia, is bestowed by third-party, independent media coverage. A lack of third-party, independent media coverage, ergo, is a lack of notability. And if you're going to claim that "Wikipedia junkies might not understand this world, a world that consists of people who leave their computers from time to time to interact with other people regarding things like beer and university athletics," you might want to pick a Wikipedia junkie who doesn't have season tickets at Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum. Consequentially 02:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Make no mistake, us college football fans have odd lives as well. Our fandom, however, tends more towards the actual interaction with humans than it does towards false demagoguery. What, pray tell, constitutes "proof"? New media and blogs by their very nature are often not cited by mainstream media sources; that does not, however, make them non-notable. 24.124.69.9 02:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Ah yes, the good ol' "you are nerds with no lives" argument. Such enlightening and insightful reasoning you have there. Ironic, however, that you tell us to live in the real world, yet you're not showing us any proof from said real world that this site is talked about there. That's why we're deleting it. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 02:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete I read this blog occasionally, but its lacking "significant coverage from independent sources" `Corpx 04:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. It's also a dubious idea to portray other people as "Wikipedia nerds" who never "leave their computers" when one is trying to justify the maintenance of a Wikipedia entry about another web site. --Metropolitan90 05:57, 6 August 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.
