Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fafblog (0th nomination)
Blog vanity. --fvw* 10:54, 2004 Dec 17 (UTC)
I guess technically it is more fandom than vanity, since the entry wasn't created by the blog owner...
- Delete. Not notable, borderline advertising. --Gene s 11:53, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete most other red links in article were deleted as ad or patent nonsense. Looks like boosting search engine rankings. [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 12:08, Dec 17, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Gigglecruft. Quite creative, there's a place for this, but we sure ain't it. Andrewa 17:22, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep A funny article won't hurt you. I have to defend Giblets at all times anyway. Mandos 18:37, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: The above vote is the first contribution by a new user, who was possibly the article's creator as an anon. Welcome sent. No change of vote. Andrewa 19:54, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Delete, digicruft, nn, ad. Wyss 23:23, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Comment Note that this article title was speedied before (Wikipedia:Deletion log archive/November 2004 (3)):
- - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 01:22, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
- Guess how I'll vote? Delete: I thought it was spam then, and I think so now. "= a site. Insider name. Insider name. Go here." To me, that's just spam. Geogre 02:43, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- del Mikkalai 02:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep Unless all blogs are considered nn, by some definition. This is a well-known blog, with a lot of left-oriented A-list blogs, such as Brad DeLong 's, listing it on the blogroll. Google gives 201,000 hits on "Fafblog". Before we start deleting articles about blogs, we should either have a "No articles about blogs" policy, or we should agree on the criterion that will be applied, and then apply it uniformly. --BM 02:26, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Same reasoning as BM, above.
- Keep. Same reasoning.
- Keep. Fafblog is fairly famous and high-quality satire. Otherwise, same reasoning as BM, above.Marcrios 06:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)