Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BlogUpp
The listed book and one other book I found ''merely mentioned'' BlogUpp.  Nowhere near  in the books.  As for the millions of web hits, that is a disadvantage in determining notability in this case because it is very difficult to wade through to find the truly independent sources that are giving significant coverage to this topic.  Although not required, it would help a lot if the proponents of keeping this would pro-actively search for and find independent, |reliable sources that provide |significant coverage of this topic and put them on the article's talk page if they are not being used as a reference.  Significant coverage is generally more than a paragraph or "capsule review."  Independent excludes material that is provided by the publisher or largely based on material provided by the publisher (i.e. the "about this product" summaries you find on many stores and free-software-download web sites are largely based on publisher-provided content and are therefore not independent).  Reliable sources exclude most blogs, discussion boards, and other "anyone can contribute" content ("|news blogs" are allowed). If such sources are provided quickly, perhaps this AFD can be ended early with a result of "|Snow keep
— User:davidwr, 17:02, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS||WP:SIGCOV||WP:NEWSBLOG||WP:SNOW (Wikipedia:Notability)