Talk:List of notable LiveJournal users
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article was nominated for deletion on 2006/11/23. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Contents |
[edit] Fork from Livejournal
Forked off of main article. rootology (T) 08:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Russian LJ
There is a large sourced list on Russian Wikipedia ru:Известные люди Живого журнала - mostly are Russian-language users. Some of these people I guess are reasonably notable to be included into the English version, but obviously not all of them. Do we have any criteria for inclusion to this list? abakharev 01:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I would say that they either need to have serious notability with english speaking individuals and at the least their LJ should be partially in english. Perhaps a "see also" for notable russian LJ users" would be in order?--Crossmr 01:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I put interwiki, so everybody particularily interested in Ru-LJ (ЖЖ) can look there. I think people having their own article on En-wiki (either on them or on their creations) or desrving such an article should be there, otherwise no. abakharev 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think its also a matter of target audience here. While some individual may be really notable, if he has no english work, linking him on the english list is likely not very helpful as no one can understand it (if they speak russian they can goto the russian list and read about them there). Though what I notice on the Russian list (even though I don't speak it) is that its massive, and a lot of the names are red links. Are all those individuals considered notable? say per WP:BIO or another test?--Crossmr 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I obviously do not want to pull all of these people into the list here. Let me think for awhile and I would try to figure out who deserves to be included. I would guess that if the Russian wiki would be not of 100K articles but of 1.5M as the English most of these people would probably have a blue link. For some reason the Russian sector of LJ is large and attracted a lot of reasonably prominent people. There were even rumors that Putin acknowledged reading a few LJs (although the accounts putin, vputin, etc. are of course hoaxes) abakharev 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well if there are some notable ones, and they have at least some text in english, I'd say include them. I think a see also would still be appropriate at the end to link to the russian list for those who want more info on the russian LJs.--Crossmr 02:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- I obviously do not want to pull all of these people into the list here. Let me think for awhile and I would try to figure out who deserves to be included. I would guess that if the Russian wiki would be not of 100K articles but of 1.5M as the English most of these people would probably have a blue link. For some reason the Russian sector of LJ is large and attracted a lot of reasonably prominent people. There were even rumors that Putin acknowledged reading a few LJs (although the accounts putin, vputin, etc. are of course hoaxes) abakharev 02:21, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but I think its also a matter of target audience here. While some individual may be really notable, if he has no english work, linking him on the english list is likely not very helpful as no one can understand it (if they speak russian they can goto the russian list and read about them there). Though what I notice on the Russian list (even though I don't speak it) is that its massive, and a lot of the names are red links. Are all those individuals considered notable? say per WP:BIO or another test?--Crossmr 02:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I put interwiki, so everybody particularily interested in Ru-LJ (ЖЖ) can look there. I think people having their own article on En-wiki (either on them or on their creations) or desrving such an article should be there, otherwise no. abakharev 01:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Renaming this article
Some of the comments on the current AfD have suggested renaming this article. Would anybody like to share their thoughts here? Mister.Manticore 06:37, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'd say that the word "notable" should remain. Admittedly it is somewhat redundant, but I'd say it was better to have it as explicit, rather than implicit. --Bobyllib 01:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] mediacrat
Since RFJason is on here, do you think that mediacrat belongs here too? --Lakerdonald 14:06, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
- RFJason/Jason Fortuny committed something that may or may not have been a crime, but was certainly as nasty in intent as the actions of the murderers and child molesters who comprise the rest of the section and with whom he deserves to be associated. Mediacrat was just an idiot, not encyclopedia-worthy. -- Davidkevin 17:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
