Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mudflats (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 was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:40, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mudflats (blog)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

2 of the sources are of itself, the other 2 are Huffington Post blog posts, one of which appears to have a connection with the subject, the other only notes the site as being in the news for one thing. FailsWP:ORGIND, WP:CORPDEPTH. Marquis de Faux (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 04:25, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:06, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, the blog seems to not meet WP:NOTE criteria. The subject matter and format of the blog likely precludes it from becoming more notable in the future, and as such it cannot further the goals of the encyclopedia. SamHolt6 (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So Why 08:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Really, crap like this is what Wikipedia deserves for so thoroughly pushing the POV that today's trending topics on the web = the only notable topics the encyclopedia need concern itself with, especially in regards to chronically underrepresented topic areas like Alaska. Note that numerous other Sarah Palin WP:COATRACK articles which were kept in years past are meeting with a different consensus as of late. Also note that regardless of the outcome, the existence of this article right this moment has been used for years to justify undue weight over at Mike Doogan. Doogan has been a public figure in Alaska for 40+ years, so it's ludicrous to assert that his notability is dependent on this topic in any way whatsoever. That is what Wikipedia deserves for having so little desire to go out and find real sources as opposed to scavenging low-hanging fruit off the web. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 09:00, 22 July 2017 (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.