Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 keep (no consensus). Not quite a two thirds majority, and I'm also concerned with a massive GNAA influx of voters early on in the debate. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:09, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] W.bloggar
- W.bloggar was nominated for deletion on 2005-02-11. The result of the discussion was "keep". For the prior discussion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W.bloggar/2005-02-11.
nn piece of software; every google hit after the first page is a blog post of someone testing out aforementioned software Hosterweis 07:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - advertising for a useless software product - Femmina 07:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- And I recall users who felt that we should focus on the issues and not who raised them. Your more recent annotations are perfectly acceptable to me as they are not about the person. If you want to start throwing out all "co-ordinated votes", I'd suggest that you nominate Schoolwatch at WP:MFD. However, since this is not a vote, I'd support a closing admin who disregarded any recomendation that did not provide any rational per the Guide_to_deletion.
- The notes are intended to inform the admin who ends up closing the AfD, so that they can consider GNAA's coordinated effort to delete blog-related articles. They aren't personal attacks. I don't think these coordinated votes should be counted at all. I remember other users from the last group of nominations who agree about this. Rhobite 02:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I won't write this under every time it occurs, but this is totally immaterial. We comment on the contribution, not the contributor. If someone wants to aid Wikipedia by improving the ratio af signal to noise, I don't care if they eat babies for breakfast. They could go about it with a bit more subtlety, and the quality of the nominations would be improved by linking to the searches (and perhaps an Alexa ranking per WP:WEB or the actual blogs), but ad hominum attacks are not on. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So what Gay Niggers can't vote? From when? - Femmina 10:10, 7 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Incognito 07:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete as nominated. It's ok to cover some wildly popular blogging tools, but there's no point to list hundreds of the ones like these. --Timecop 07:50, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- weak keep Several hundred hits indicates at least somewhat wide use, which is why this passed VFD the first time around. Also, fix the page so it actually links to here. Night Gyr 08:57, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertisement --Depakote 11:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Above user is a participant in the GNAA "war on blogs". Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Proto t c 13:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Jmax- 19:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 2. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Tapir
- All of the above user's edits are to blog AfD's except for 8. Rhobite 01:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree with “delete” arguments. I don’t blog, and I don’t use Windows, but I disagree that this software is useless, and I see nothing here that’s blatantly subjective, so I don’t think it constitutes “advertising” any more than does, say, “Microsoft Windows.” The only thing that’s missing here is a comparison (or link to a comparison) to like software. For instance, Wikipedia is probably the only hope for a query like “show me a list of blog client software that implements the MetaWeblog protocol.”
To say this is an “advertisement” (in the sense of “marketing”) is tantamount to saying that this was contributed by a W.bloggar insider, is it not? (Don’t confuse “advertising” with an enthusiastic user’s testimonial.) Frankly I consider that a reckless assertion, not (evidently) based on fact.
I don’t have any opinion on W.bloggar’s notability though. —Fleminra 19:51, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - Delete point above notwithstanding, this is nn, non-encyclopedic. Eusebeus 20:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Hosterweis. There is no shortage of tried-once blogs and no shortage of crap software for making them with. Just zis Guy, you know? [T]/[C]
AfD? 22:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC) - Keep, well-known blog software. Rhobite 01:09, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, 320,000 google hits. --Interiot 01:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep, well-known software with wide usability.--SarekOfVulcan 01:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, 320K hits but I'm not seeing anything impressive. A single hit on news, and only 35 group hits. It would be nice to see the alexa ranking of the homepage, but I can't seem to connect. Delete unless evidence of notability provided. - brenneman(t)(c) 01:47, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Forallah 02:35, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I have read all of the wikipedia rules and etc., I am completely familiar with the system. (Pillars, etc.) Is an AfD not also editing wikipedia? Forallah 04:10, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Replying on User Talk:Forallah. - brenneman(t)(c) 04:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Anyone can edit, but AfD requires some familarity with the way things work, as well as caution about people with goals other than the project's in mind. Plese don't take it as a personal thing. - brenneman(t)(c) 03:02, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am going to have to assume good faith Forallah and hope you continue to positively contribute to Wikipedia. However I would just like to say that in the future try to include more information in your AfDs than just "as per norm". Tom Foolery 06:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- So was I mistaken when I thought wikipedia was "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit."? Forallah 02:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- No edits before today, and no edits outside AfD. Rhobite 02:46, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep The amount of google hits are hard to ignore, and the alexa rankings only are a sliver short of WP:WEB. WhiteNight T | @ | C 08:23, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Proto t c 10:39, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
- Already commented/voted above WhiteNight T | @ | C 07:16, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep given the number of google hits... Mairi 05:58, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per strong Googles. FCYTravis 07:02, 11 January 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.
