Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloggers

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was keep. Ben Standeven 23:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Bloggers

Delete There is no category for pencil users, why should there be one for bloggers? Bloghate 05:06, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Because bloggers can be both widely read and influential. Capitalistroadster 05:17, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. True to your name then, Bloghate?
• Strong keep. Bloggers seems to redirect to Weblog, which of course is notable. What do you mean by pencil users? - Mgm|^(talk) 08:28, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: What I mean by pencil users is that blogging is a tool and bloggers are just using that tool. If using a tool is a factor for getting into Wikipedia, then there should be a category under car for drivers (where everyone with a license could be listed) or a category under food for all people who eat. Blogging in itself is NOT of note. --Bloghate 11:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• keep what's a pencil? Dunc|☺ 09:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• keep and please stop feeding the troll. And, please, somebody block user Bloghate unless he/she turns away from time-wasting trollery and tries to make a useful contribution to Wikipedia. Bloghate's contributions Maybe you have to be a blog-lover to see the pattern, but Bloghate has concentrated on VfD-ing popular and notable people who also happen to have blogs, for example best-selling business author David Allen. It would also make sense to take all his previous VfD nominations off the list, as they continue to attract anguished comments from people who don't know what's going on. betsythedevine 12:27, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep. C'mon, this is really getting ridiculous -- what, now we're supposed to discount a tremendously popular phenomenon simply because a lot of blogs are full of crap? Hell, so's all of reality TV, but that doesn't mean it's not noteworthy. And since Bloggers is just an obviously useful redirect to Weblog, what's the problem here anyway? -- Captain Disdain 12:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Bloghate might be referring to Category:Bloggers Kappa 12:52, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep It's notable enough to be kept Cyclone49 13:19, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Strong keep Let's see, I get 12,900,000 Google hits for bloggers, 18,300,000 Google hits for blogger, 38,600,000 Google hits for weblog, and 103,000,000 Google hits for blog. Gee, you'd almost think it was starting to catch on or something. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Already redirected and weblog needs to stand.Barneygumble 14:15, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, obviously. 23skidoo 16:30, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:Point K1Bond007 22:01, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)
• The link up top was supposed to point to Category:Bloggers; I've fixed it. Of course that means it should go on WP:CFD. --SPUI (talk) 22:37, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Super ultra extreme keep. Wow. That counts for like, two votes. Sincerely,  Short Verses  ^(talk) 01:54, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. Am I the only one here who's heard of Categories for deletion???!!! ----Isaac R 04:05, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as per nominee, and Comment, I think someone's sockpuppeteering. --Adun 05:26, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep until this list becomes too large. --TheAznSensation 05:55, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, for the obvious reasons mentioned above. User:Bloghate is causing a ton of needless effort for all of us who don't want to see a significantly important portion of online culture and information deleted from Wikipedia. If someone could let me know what my options are for dealing with this user by posting the info on my talk page, it would be appreciated. --ElfWord 14:48, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, encyclopedic topic, possibly POV or trolling nomination for deletion. -- Infrogmation 02:19, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a disruptive VfD nomination. Rhobite 02:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Contributions by nominator are suspicious given the (potentially offensive) user name. Considering an WP:RFC if these disruptive actions continue. Hall Monitor 17:13, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep if for no other reason that putting this whole section and its dependents in VfD seems to be the quest of the nominator (the user has made no other significant contributions...) --TNLNYC 22:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Like it or hate it, blogging is a significant cultural phenomenon lately. *Dan* 03:43, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep it's an important part of today's culture.--Poli 03:44, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.