Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mad Money 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 03:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mad Money Blog

The article provides little more than a link to the Mad Money website, and what information it does provide is already available at the Mad Money article---this is all redundant. Charles 02:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Individual Blogspot pages (and the like) are not valid subjects for encyclopaedia articles of themselves without some reason for fame or notoriety, in which case it will invariably tied to the creator and not have its own existence. Jammo (SM247) 03:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per both AdamBiswanger1 03:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete in agreement with the points above. Lord Bodak 04:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Interestingly enough, the blog linked to in the article no longer exists as of this morning (it was there when I looked yesterday afternoon). Lord Bodak 12:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per above. —Khoikhoi 04:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this please. Scented Guano 06:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:WEB and I concur with Jammo (SM247).--Isotope23 15:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I suspected this article would probably be nominated when I first saw it, but given the article Mad Money I was concerned that this blog might meet WP:WEB. I see I was not alone in my concerns, so delete per nom. Agent 86 18:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mad Money. - Kookykman|(t)e 20:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Probably not proper to comment on it like this, but please keep in mind that the blog linked to by the article did NOT belong to Jim Cramer and was not related to his show. It was someone's blog to talk about Cramer's picks. There is no "Mad Money Blog" that belongs to Cramer. Lord Bodak 21:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Oooooh. Ignore my vote, then. - Kookykman|(t)e 22:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, Lord Bodak. Given this new research, this article is even more deserving of deletion, it seems to me. ---Charles 02:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. LotLE×talk 07:00, 18 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.