Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jdavidb/blog
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Greeves (talk | contribs) at 22:49, 15 April 2008 (→User:Jdavidb/blog: Closing as keep.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 22:49, 15 April 2008 by Greeves (talk | contribs) (→User:Jdavidb/blog: Closing as keep.)
- The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result of the debate was keep. Greeves (talk • contribs) 22:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:NOT. Wikipedia is NOT a blog. Also, here says Wikipedia sucks. Now, that doesn't tell the truth nor does cite sources. Nothing444 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]
- Keep. I think Wikipedia sucks, too; or at least its starting to. I agree with him that the notability requirements have become too narrow. Is that banning material now? Can we not state our concerns about policy on our own userspace anymore? The 'blog' is almost exclusively wikipedia-related. While I always assume good faith, I'm starting to grow suspicious of the nominator's flurry of nominations for the deletion of userspace content. I'm sure he may mean well, but attacking users isn't a way to help the project. Celarnor Talk to me 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, to cite sources for "notability requirements have been too narrow" isn't really necessary, considering the statement is aimed at Wikipedians who know about WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:BOOK, WP:PROF, WP:FILM, WP:BAND, WP:ORG, WP:WEB, etc. Celarnor Talk to me 22:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- See also: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GTA Ganxtaize/Blog. BoL (Talk) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- These don't appear to be related. This is about a person's thoughts about Wikipedia, the other appears to be a personal blog. I think there's a distinction between the two. Metros (talk) 02:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Either way, we're not Myspace or' Wordpress. If someone wants to publish thoughts about us, or do something personal, they can do so somewhere else. Neutral for now. BoL (Talk) 03:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This isn't just any personal blog with gossipy personal details or "daily life" or whatever. This blog is almost exclusively Wikipedia-related. We allow users to put Wikipedia essays in their userspace. This is something like that. The format may be different, it may not be limited to one particular issue, but it's Wikipedia-related all the same.--WPholic(user)(talk) 10:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. WP:NOT#BLOG means that Wikipedia is not a free host for personal blogs unrelated to Wikipedia. Blogs about Wikipedia are allowed. Discussion and criticism of Wikipedia within the community is healthy for the improvement of the encyclopedia. WaltonOne 11:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per Celanor and Walton. Joe 19:03, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as long as it stays wikipedia-related. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 08:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, blogs are not allowed, no matter how Wikipedian they are. There's a whole Internet out there for that, we are wasting OUR bandwidth for his ramblings. And your little 'said Wikipedia sucks' remark made me cringe. Have you thought of a career in popular journalism? +Hexagon1 (t) 03:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What about remarks in the userspace about events? What about essays that haven't been moved into the project? That's essentially what this is. Celarnor Talk to me 03:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a distinction between remarks and a subpage called 'Blog'. Likewise between essays and blogs. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what is it? Is it the word 'blog'? Celarnor Talk to me 06:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it a remark is usually a brief one or two sentence comment, a blog is usually a series of feature-sized entries discussing something. One we tolerate, one we don't. He started a subpage with the intention of writing a blog. He wrote a blog. Wikipedia is not a blogging service. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can everyone look past the unfortunate title of "blog" given to this subpage and to the actual content of the page? It contains comments, helpful suggestions and discussions of the wiki that are helpful to us all. It is a gold mine of useful information beneficial to Wikipedia's development. --WPholic(user)(talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT? It may be great but it is not for the Wikipedia. He can host it elsewhere, like all the other Wikipedia-commentary sites. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS: If he formalised it into an essay and posted that it would be fine, but as it stands it really is a blog. And we really don't allow them. I'm sorry, but I am just trying to follow the current rules. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So your main issue is that it follows the format of a blog? I'm sorry, I really don't think a policy expressly designed to limit userpages to information relevant to the encyclopedia was intended to prohibit pages of suggestions, discussion and commentary simply because they happen to be in the format of a blog. --WPholic(user)(talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my main issue is that it is a blog. In that comment I've just noted a curiosity of Wikipedia rules. But as it stands blogs = bad. I think I've outlined that above. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he formalised it into an essay and posted that it would be fine, but as it stands it really is a blog. In other words, the content is perfectly fine, because if the content was presented in essay form it would be fine. It's the format in which the content is presented that poses a problem. Have I misunderstood you? --WPholic(user)(talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't. According to the rules, yes - it is so. However the distinction between blog and essay is greater than you make it seem, if I present myself in blog form during my upcoming exams... well, let's just say I'd become a whole lot more active on Wikipedia. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter, I think. The rule was probably designed more to prevent personal blogs popping up everywhere than to squelch healthy discussion and suggestions about Wikipedia that happen to be presented in an unfortunate format. --WPholic(user)(talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I forgot about good ol' WP:IAR :) +Hexagon1 (t) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Haha, I was about to cite that! :) --WPholic(user)(talk) 11:03, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree, I forgot about good ol' WP:IAR :) +Hexagon1 (t) 10:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The spirit of the rules is more important than the letter, I think. The rule was probably designed more to prevent personal blogs popping up everywhere than to squelch healthy discussion and suggestions about Wikipedia that happen to be presented in an unfortunate format. --WPholic(user)(talk) 10:15, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, you haven't. According to the rules, yes - it is so. However the distinction between blog and essay is greater than you make it seem, if I present myself in blog form during my upcoming exams... well, let's just say I'd become a whole lot more active on Wikipedia. :) +Hexagon1 (t) 09:45, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If he formalised it into an essay and posted that it would be fine, but as it stands it really is a blog. In other words, the content is perfectly fine, because if the content was presented in essay form it would be fine. It's the format in which the content is presented that poses a problem. Have I misunderstood you? --WPholic(user)(talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No, my main issue is that it is a blog. In that comment I've just noted a curiosity of Wikipedia rules. But as it stands blogs = bad. I think I've outlined that above. +Hexagon1 (t) 12:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- So your main issue is that it follows the format of a blog? I'm sorry, I really don't think a policy expressly designed to limit userpages to information relevant to the encyclopedia was intended to prohibit pages of suggestions, discussion and commentary simply because they happen to be in the format of a blog. --WPholic(user)(talk) 11:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ILIKEIT? It may be great but it is not for the Wikipedia. He can host it elsewhere, like all the other Wikipedia-commentary sites. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:10, 14 April 2008 (UTC) PS: If he formalised it into an essay and posted that it would be fine, but as it stands it really is a blog. And we really don't allow them. I'm sorry, but I am just trying to follow the current rules. +Hexagon1 (t) 11:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Can everyone look past the unfortunate title of "blog" given to this subpage and to the actual content of the page? It contains comments, helpful suggestions and discussions of the wiki that are helpful to us all. It is a gold mine of useful information beneficial to Wikipedia's development. --WPholic(user)(talk) 11:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- As I see it a remark is usually a brief one or two sentence comment, a blog is usually a series of feature-sized entries discussing something. One we tolerate, one we don't. He started a subpage with the intention of writing a blog. He wrote a blog. Wikipedia is not a blogging service. +Hexagon1 (t) 07:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, what is it? Is it the word 'blog'? Celarnor Talk to me 06:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a distinction between remarks and a subpage called 'Blog'. Likewise between essays and blogs. +Hexagon1 (t) 06:18, 14 April 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.