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. - Mailer Diablo 05:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler[edit]

The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Blog deleted via an AFD that was part of "GNAAs war on blogs". At deletion review concerns were raised about whether or not deletion was in line with consensus of Wikipedians, so it is back for further consideration. This is a technical nomination, I offer no opinion. GRBerry 01:30, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails the primary inclusion criterion for web-sites: the site has not been the subject of multiple reliable secondary sources. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 03:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Sourcing needs work, but I'm convinced sources do exist. According to Glenn Greenwald, Rottweiler is the 42nd most-linked-to blog on the Internet [1]. Dave Neiwert, who is a published author in addition to being a weblogger, has singled out Misha's site as one of the epicenters of right-wing eliminationism (see, e.g., [2]). A Google search for "anti-idiotarian rottweiler" comes up with 910,000 matches. I'm convinced this is notable and that proper sources can be found. Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 00:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 10:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Alexa ranks it in the 200,000s. Unless sources can be produced to show notability, I'm not seeing it. The list provided by Crotalus horridus appears to place Wonkette at number 42... I can't see it by scanning the list, but possibly I'm missing it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, no notability demonstrated. WarpstarRider 12:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, fails WP:ATT, WP:WEB. Like CH, I see an Alexa rank of #236,935, and whatever the methodology that proclaimed this in the top fifty of Web blogs, I'm unconvinced. If this is as influential a blog as all of that, I'd like to see some reliable, published, independent sources, please.  RGTraynor  13:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Now that I can actualy take a look at this one I stand by my opinion that it should likely have just remained deleted. Claims of being one of the "top blogs" might qualify for inclusion, but this claim is unsourced and either way a quick web search doesn't seem to imply that it can pass WP:WEB. Arkyan • ^(talk) 15:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete- If it has been deleted before it must have been deleted for one certain reason. Delete per the previous reason it was deleted. Retiono Virginian 15:16, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that this article was undeleted in a DRV review because enough editors felt that there was substantial new information to consider on the topic. It may have been deleted for a reason before, but it was undeleted for a reason as well and this debate should not simply be a rehash of an old deletion but a discussion on the merits of the article. Arkyan • ^(talk) 16:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No matter the topic or the supposed controversy, this blog doesn't actually appear to meet WP:WEB. I've gone through that list and it's not on it, although another politically similar blog is (and doesn't have an article and perhaps should, since that blog may pass WP:WEB). I don't see that it's won any recognized unrelated third-party awards (as have, for instance, Go Fug Yourself or Regret The Error, two non-political blogs). I'm not seeing where it's being written about by non-trivial sources (as the above have been). --Charlene 17:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This blog is not like MySpace, which is a actually a notable website. Doesn't seem to meet WP:BIO. Sr13 (T|C) 23:15, 6 April 2007 (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.