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. -Doc ^ask? 18:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jalopnik[edit]

Was re-created after being PRODded, so it's not subject to ((db|repost)). Be that as it may, it's still a non-notable blog that needs to be deleted. Angr (talk • contribs) 20:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: ((subst:spa|username)); suspected canvassed users: ((subst:canvassed|username)); accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: ((subst:csm|username)) or ((subst:csp|username)).

• "Where else are you going to read about Paris Hillton's inability to operate a car door" ... only in about 9,000 other D-list comics' material. Speedy delete this as previously deleted material. Aplomado - UTC 21:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree that stories about Paris Hilton are not hard to find or generally substantive, however the sophmoric edits of users should not be the measure for whether a blog is noteworthy. Though your concern as to the noteworthiness of certain blogs is important, do you have an unbiased way of determining whether a blog is noteworthy besides consulting your own opinion?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahsachs (talk • contribs)
  • It was a joke. In any event, it's a non-notable blog, and it's already been deleted anyway. Aplomado - UTC 21:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• bummer— Preceding unsigned comment added by Noahsachs (talk • contribs)
• I love Jalopnik as much as the next guy, but right now having Jalopnik in the Wiki would be little more than advertising. Perhaps when the J site gets mentioned in the automotive press. The mention in Time Magazine helps, but a few more reviews, and any awards Jalopnik might have won would make the article eligible for keeping according to the guidelines. Weak delete --Pc13 22:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Named one of Time magazine's 50 Coolest Websites of 2005, Jalopnik feeds hungry car enthusiasts content not always accessible or up-to-date in traditional media channels.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.195.53.21 (talk • contribs)
• We mean -- we were mentioned as one of Time magazine's 50 coolest websites. Does that count oh great and honored ones? --69.89.100.18 00:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that Jalopnik should probably not be a part of the Wiki, as I think that all the relevant information is on the Jalopnik website. A Wiki entry would simply be a form of advertisement.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.122.36 (talk • contribs)
• Jalopnik gets mentioned in the automotive press all the time, not in the mags but on the other online sites. There is a lot of shortsightedness here. Automotive media is changing and Jalopnik amongst others is the new wave of things to come. By the time one gets AutoWeek which, as its name would imply, comes out weekly the news is already old. I would argue that Jalopnik is a leader in cutting edge automotive content even though it is in its nacent stage. The ability for users to enter commentary adds to its content. Deleting Jalopnik would be a mistake.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sebrock (talk • contribs)
• Gawker Media has a wiki page, so why shouldn't Jalopnik have one? Gawker Media is arguably the leading online provider of edgy, obsession-feeding daily content, catering to several different interests by individualizing different blog sites (a lot like Time, Inc offering all of its different magazines). Jalopnik is the one for cars. I guess when Time buys Gawker, then it will be worth noting? Okay, then wait three months. Anyone who dismisses an entry about a Gawker Media site must be completely out of touch (which is pretty impressive for a wikipedia user).— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.158.223.86 (talk • contribs)

• How about some hard statistics about how popular this site really is? If it can be proven popular then it may be influential and noteworthy. Isn't that why an article like Wired News exists, because it is popular and influential? Being listed on Time Magazine as a top 50 Blog site is no small thing to do considering the amount of blog sites that exist on the net. If the owner of this site can cite some more relevant references and stats I'd be persuaded to vote to keep. --Hapa 02:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The site get around 85,000 - 100,000 page views a day from over 55,000 unique visitors according to sitemeter.
• Delete, this page has an Alexa ranking of 9973. That means we've got about 9000 other articles to write first --Deville (Talk) 03:15, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sitemeter numbers don't lie -- however, Alexa numbers are not known as entirely accurate.--69.89.100.18 03:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and protect. Non-notable. Probable vanity article. -- RHaworth 05:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, not so much vanity -- we think we're ugly. However, as we are the largest non-corporate automotive blog (re: not owned by a publicly-traded corporation -- we think we are deserved of some respect.
• Keep As Jalopnik is an "entity" or in effect a noun, inclussion in Wikipedia does not seem to be unjustified. However ensuring the article is not just an advertisment does seem to be the key issue. I'd argue that the content should be limited to facts about Jalopnik and not opinions as to why they are better then print media. Personally I'm interested in how Jalopnik came to be, How does it operate, what is special about it vs other online autoblogs (things that I think are already in the article). RumorControl 15:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Note: Editor's first contribution to Wikipedia.[reply]
• Keep This article reads a tiny bit like an add, however, that should be cleaned up and is not a good reason to delete the entry. There is nothing in any wikipedia policy that I can find that says this entry should be deleted. Admiral.Ackbar 17:39, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've really hesitated to get involved in this discussion as I'm one of the site's editors. I agree that the current post is somewhat advertisey (note that I had no hand in writing it). That said, there's an entry on Screeching Weasel's song "My Brain Hurts," and I'm guessing less people know that song than read our site. Deleting an entry on Jalopnik is frankly, somewhat silly, even from an outside perspective. Editing it so it conforms to standards? Sure, I'm all for it. I'd personally like to see it be more neutral, broad and wikified. But when editors I have a lot of respect for at major car mags tell me that our site is part of their morning must-reads, I know that we're not inconsequential. I certainly agree that the post right now isn't as neutral or fact-based about us as it should be. But give people a chance to rectify that, rather than deleting it. Isn't that what Wikipedia's supposed to be about? -- Davey G. Johnson, Associate Editor, Los Angeles, Jalopnik
• Keep I love Jalopnik but feel the article was a little on the advertising side. I made a first attempt at neutrality...please review! - jcz1978
• Delete per WP:WEB and flood of meatpuppets. Stifle (talk) 12:54, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the article you linked to, the "The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation." I think the above mentioned CNN award qualifies this site by that rule alone. Admiral.Ackbar 16:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Modify Since the page is rather fact-light, it may be better to redirect and move the content to a section under the Gawker Media article rather than delete it. Jcz1978 15:15, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 2.6 M Google hits. -Litefantastic 20:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not notable blog. --MaNeMeBasat 10:39, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.