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 07:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sadly, No[edit]

Sadly, No (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable political blogshite. No references except to itself and other blogs. Does not fit any kind of notability criteria. Sadly, not notable. --timecop 03:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. MER-C 04:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Delete per nom. –- kungming·2 ^(Talk) 06:28, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn blog per nom. Eusebeus 14:12, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Scienter 14:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable, vanity - Femmina 20:02, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak^{(Calbaer 19:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC))} Delete if not significantly changed. Unsourced and unencyclopedic, but for all I know the blog might be notable in spite of its "small ... community" and lack of evidence in this article. Calbaer 22:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Dennisthe2 04:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable ego masturbation. --Amanduhh 03:12, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: If the information in this article were sourced, would it then be worthy to keep? I just came upon the article today because I was wondering what the story is behind this site. I know Wikipedia doesn't want to become a blog directory, but doesn't a blog gain some notablility after it reaches a certain level in traffic or some other marker?--AmericanRonin 21:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Wikipedia:Notability gives the guideline (with WP:WEB being the specific one for online material). Said guideline states that "notability is not subjective," which rings false to me, but its point is that it's not based on "I like it," but rather "It satisfies X, Y, and Z" (which can be found in WP:WEB). Properly sourced and written, Sadly, No! might be a valuable entry to Wikipedia. But right now it needs work to prove itself. In some sense it's kind of a shame that blogs need to go through such effort to prove themselves, so much so that the source text can be as much reference as explanation (in order to deflect random annoying AfDs). But, considering the arcane and novel nature of blogs, it's necessary in order to have a consistent policy all around. And Sadly, No! doesn't seem to meet it. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Retain - Do Not Delete It is very important in the case of political blogs to be able to find third-party information on the people involved and the history of the blog. If we begin to pick and choose which political blog "qualifies" for a Wikipedia entry, we'd better be very careful about the political philosophies of the people recomending deletion. Why delete the Sadly,No entry and not, say, the Little Green Footballs entry? Where would it stop? Where should it stop? 70.89.67.161 22:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Then you go to the said blog and click 'about' link. Ego-inflating 'about this blog' cruft can and should be kept local to the blog, and not in wikipedia. And LGF is big enough to be annoying and kept on wikipedia, where as Sadly, no is not. --timecop 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - There are notability guidelines at Wikipedia:Notability and WP:WEB. I personally think they're a bit too strict on blogs (versus, say, minor manga characters), but the Sadly, No! article really needs to have some sourcing as to its notability, and, frankly, it needs to be better-written. Right now, the article is poorly written and the blog comes off as some small humor blog that derives its humor and alleged notability off of starting "blog dust-ups" with more well-known blogs. It still might be notable — maybe it's the Ali G of the blogosphere — but, from the entry, I just can't see how. Calbaer 22:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Sadly, No! is a blog fairly frequently linked to by "top tier" blogs like Atrios, and is certainly a moderate-traffic player in the left-wing, um, blogosphere. The article information could use sourcing, and if that means sourcing it to their "About" page, well, that would be a start. Cromis 02:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - An "about" page is not a reliable source. Links to media coverage, awarding organizations, news stories, well-established webpages/blogs, etc. are the kind of things I'd be looking for. (The last of these is not considered by some to establish notability, but I think that a blog being consistently mentioned — not merely linked to — by several top blogs is a pretty good indication of notability.) Calbaer 02:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - Well, yeah, the sourcing is problematic. To me the notability is fairly clear - dozens of links from Atrios over at least 2 years, plenty of links from other sites; if you follow Atrios, you can't help but be familiar with it. It's a B-level political blog, of which there are many, but that doesn't make them all irrelevant or identical, any more than, say, local newspaper columnists. On the other hand, if there's nothing both interesting & verifiably sourced you can say about it, then notability doesn't matter so much. The problem I have is with comments indicating that it's obviously not notable because ... it's a blog? They don't know anything about it? They don't like it? Those aren't grounds for non-notability. Cromis 64.142.81.56 21:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment - As for as I can tell, people aren't saying it's not notable because it's a blog, rather that it's a nonnotable blog. Not everyone has to fully explain their opinion on the topic in order to share their judgment. Calbaer 22:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Keep - Sadly, No! is a significant blog and deserving of an article. Krakatoa 07:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Timecop, the user who instituted this whole discussion, is waging a self-declared war on blogs; this is not a debate about the merits of this particular blog more than an attempt by an individual to impose his own standards on Wikipedia. Simply look around this site-- there are articles on minor anime characters, yet a blog with its own community and some political relevance (and it should be noted that I don't visit this site particularly often myself) doesn't warrant it's own page? It's completely arbitrary and contradictory. 61.132.71.55
  • Comment - Sadly, your whole comment is a personal attack, is based on a logical fallacy and does not discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of the article in question. In my opinion, the admin that will close this discussion should not consider you vote. - Femmina 10:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I don't think it's a personal attack; either timecop is declaring "the war on blogs" or he has an elaborate satire claiming the same. That doesn't mean that Sadly, No! should be kept, but it does mean that we need to be very skeptical about his/her motives and arguments. Calbaer 19:33, 2 December 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.