Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Top Ten Blogs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 15:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Top Ten Blogs

Inherently POV-centric listcruft. ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 18:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, this is inherently subjective and non verifiable. Gwernol 18:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Gwernol & Redvers reasoning.--Isotope23 18:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not a repository of external links. --TheKoG (talk|contribs) 18:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is an experiment in using community knowledge as a filter for authority. Technorati, Google Blogs, and other blog related search engines have constructed mathematic algorithms that do a poor job of filtering through unique content and informationally valuable blogs (primarily because of the relatively new explosion of blog popularity and the inherent vulnerabilty of the blogosphere to spam). I'm interested to track the progress of this page as it gets edited by wikipedia visitors, to see if "the group" can come up with a better top ten list than the search algorithms.

If allowed a significant lifespan on wikipedia, i beleive this page could generate a very interesting reference page on a) the wisdom of crowds theory, b) verticle blog communities, c) user perceptions of authority in the blogosphere. —This unsigned comment was added by Kbzimm (talk • contribs) .

Comment then this falls under WP:OR. I'm afraid Wikipedia is not a forum for experiments like this, no matter how well intentioned or interesting. There are plenty of other places on the web where this would be a welcome addition. if it takes off, then an interesting Wikipedia article could be written about it. Gwernol 19:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NOR, also blogcruft. Just zis Guy you know? 19:22, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; original research, bloglinkcruft, inherently POV and as such is bait for edit wars. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment I'm open to suggestions for other sites, but wikipedia is the only wiki-format site with such high traffic and participation. I expect it'd go thru phases of blog spam at first, but even out eventually to collections of "the most relevant accumulated knowledge on each subject."--kbzimm 20:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete "...considered the best in their subject area." Considered by whom? Where are the research citations and statistics to back up such a claim? If no papers can be cited to this effect, no original research applies.  (aeropagitica)  20:55, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete blogs aren't allowed on wikipedia, so listcruft for them shouldn't be allowed either ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 00:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:37, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete um, duh? Admrb♉ltz (T | C | k) 07:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per all the above. Metamagician3000 04:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.