Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:08, 2 October 2009

Speedy deletion nomination of EphBlog

A tag has been placed on EphBlog requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 00:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• First, the article was one sentence long and just said "this is a blog". Second, the sources (one college paper and two local papers) aren't about Ephblog -- they just mention it in passing. I don't see any claim of notability under WP:WEB. NawlinWiki (talk) 23:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

First, the article was one sentence long because I had just started it. Restore it and I (and others) will expand it. Second, criteria for WP:WEB would include the three articles that I cited. They are clearly not "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." How about restoring the page and then seeing how the article looks after a couple of days? David.Kane (talk) 14:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Improving EphBlog

• Sorry to see EphBlog has befallen the deletionists so early. I really see no reason why wikipedia would be benefited by the deletion of the article, especially as it is pretty nicely sourced for a college-focused publication. I also see that happy-go-lucky merging activity got rid of the separate article for the Williams Record back in 2007, even after an AfD was unsuccessful in 2005. Sheesh. I believe that the primary student publication of any major college or university is likely to support a separate article. Secondary publications, e.g., Chicago Weekly (which recently avoided deletion), may as well, but its harder to convince folks of that around here. Do you have access to full copies of the references in the Eagle and Transcript? If you could email them to me, I'll see if I can't improve the article any more. cheers, --Milowent (talk) 13:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just wanted to stop by and say that you may be a new editor but as far as I can see your arguments and work the EphBlog article and AfD debate are of an excellent standard; it's a pleasure debating against you! But then I'm only a new editor myself so take that with a grain of salt. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! David.Kane (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)