Is IMAO notable?

The debate rages on at Wikipedia, but I'm not sure what standard they are using for notable to say if I do or do not meet it. I tried looking up Wikipedia in the Wikipedia, but wasn't enlightened on what the content of the Wikipedia should be limited to.

Anyway, this seems like an inefficient process with all this debating... especially considering that just anyone can come in and add things without even registering. Still, they are quite quick to delete references to Glenn Reynolds being called the "puppy blender" (even though it's true) as soon as it appears. Maybe such a reference would better go on the entry for IMAO... if it's deemed notable.

Now, one person on the debate said that blogs in general are not notable. That's quite spurious. Certainly some blogs have had more influence on news and politics that the Wikipedia which itself was deemed notable enough for an entry. Then the question is, what blogs are notable? Of course the puppy blender is, but is the not so humble IMAO?

Anyway, I'd like to hear arguments for and against IMAO being notable, and, if notable, what specifically makes it notable. I know my readers probably won't want to admit reading something un-notable, but maybe write some arguments against just for fun. Maybe later I'll try using that info to write a more encyclopedic (i.e., not silly, like previous attempts) entry about my blog… with extra information only I am privy to.

So... what do you think?

UPDATE: I'm now decided on this topic. The Carrot Top movie is in Wikipedia (and they are requesting a more expanded article about it). If that's the standard, my blog is certainly notable.

Email This | Add to del.icio.us | Digg this | Stumble It!