Talk:Valleywag

This article was nominated for deletion on 2006-06-16. The result of the discussion was Keep.

Comments from 2006

Um, a not-notable blog? If you kill the entry for Valleywag, can you please also be sure to kill the entries for these non-notable print counterparts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Enquirer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OK%21_magazine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hello_Magazine

just to name a few. --agreed, this article should be kept.

Keep. --Nick Douglas 21:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As much as I hate Valleywag, it's definetly noteworthy.

Maybe more suitable as a redirect to Gawker Media. I vote not for deletion, but for redirection to Gawker Media page, pulling edits along with it-- Joe Crawford

As the editor of Valleywag, may I suggest including information from the San Francisco Chronicle profile (published in early February) or L.A. Times profile? --Nick Douglas 00:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

by the book

We're going to do this article "by the book", aren't we? Nothing else is to be tolerated. We don't play games with encyclopedia content no matter how big of a stick the subject of an article has poked us with. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 22:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawrence, I respect you, but I find the suggestion I would do anything but by the book to be unfair. The criticism section I drafted is completely sourced, and the lead drew from the sources found in the body. I simply had not transposed the refs up top. The body that is unsourced was not written by me. --David Shankbone 23:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I love you too, David, and it wasn't directed at you specifically. Some users here have a habit of attacking criticizers via article space. I just wanted to put folks on notice, is all. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 23:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wales as co-founder of Wikipedia

I just corrected that material in the article. Thank you. --70.109.223.188 (talk) 13:17, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that. Thanks, SqueakBox 14:16, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is why he is notable. Why do you want to remove the fact that he is co-founder from every article that he is mentioned in? --70.109.223.188 (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Move Page?

The Valleywag blog has now been moved to valleywag.gawker.com and is no longer a stand-alone site. Does this mean that we should integrate this information into the Gawker entry?--Cartman005 (talk) 20:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest leaving it here (there's an infobox status that acknowledges a website is now defunct). I did a partial update to reflect this, but more work needs to be done. 68.165.77.223 (talk) 01:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Valleywag Defunct?

The Valleywag URL now redirects to the Gawker main page, which makes no reference to Valleywag. Is Valleywag now defunct? If so, the article should be revised into the past tense. Circumspect (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Valleywag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080314140514/http://valleywag.com:80/tech/housekeeping/valleywag-release-candidate-2-214343.php to http://valleywag.com/tech/housekeeping/valleywag-release-candidate-2-214343.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:00, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]