Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/What Really Happened (2nd nomination)
as failing . I've tried very hard to find something in  to allow me to push for keep.  I tried to view the http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/thestar/422155701.html?did=422155701&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Nov+17%2C+2002&author=&pub=Toronto+Star&desc=Pursue+the+truth+about+Sept.+11 Toronto Star article, but I'm unwilling to pay for it.  I did read the http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035774581010&call_page=TS_Columnists&call_pageid=970599109774&call_pagepath=Columnists followup, where the author retracts her listing.  I view the original article and this retraction as failing  since it appears it is ''Trivial coverage, such as newspaper articles that simply report the internet address, ... a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of internet addresses and site''.  The http://www.bnaibrith.ca/press5/pr-021118-55.html B'nai Brith mention doesn't actually mention the site, other than indirectly.  I really see no evidence of ''notability'' as Wikipedia uses it.  As to the question of whether such criteria are useful for blogs, I agree that we need to look at this.  There needs to be a clearer understanding of what blogs qualify for inclusion, and even what blogs, if any, can be referenced in main articles.  Right now, it is a real mess
— User:TedE, 02:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:WEB||WP:WEB||WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Notability)