Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brains: Philosophy of Mind

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 was Delete. Nishkid64 22:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brains:_Philosophy_of_Mind

Brains:_Philosophy of Mind (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

This is an article about a blog. WP:BLOG is only a proposal in the preliminary stages at this point in time. Kenosis 02:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

There are articles about blogs, is that reason for deletion? --Kenneth M Burke 03:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I had reason to believe that unless a blog is sufficiently notable, WP is not the place to introduce them. But I'm willing to stand corrected if wrong about this. ... Kenosis 03:08, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to concede your reason for deletion if you find policy for such reasoning (or care to develop one through democratic process,) but believe I can find a wholesome list of pages for blogs like it on wikipedia. --Kenneth M Burke 03:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted. --Kenneth M Burke 03:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. The statement by the article's creator and sole author (just above, which said: "After reading of the policy, I do not find that it is need of being deleted") is a conclusory statement without any evidence in support. I do not see a reason to withdraw the nomination or change my opinion on this issue at present. I do recognize that it can be an ever-bending issue in a forum such as Wikipedia. For instance, not long ago the accepted position was that only colleges should merit inclusion as articles in WP, and fairly quickly many more of the AfD debates have moved to high schools, and even to elementary schools. Similarly with blogs maybe; but I've been under the impression that WP:notability, WP:Reliable sources and other relevant guidelines have still been intended to mean we shouldn't use WP to introduce and attempt to disseminate a blog, but should instead constrain ourselves to describing such an endeavor only after it achieves widespread attention of its own accord. ... Kenosis 03:54, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal? --Kenneth M Burke 04:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Comment, depends if they meet WP:WEB. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable blog. Terence Ong 04:56, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, "Are blogs notable and reliable enough to be on Wikipedia? I believe they are fine, but if you want it deleted . . . perhaps we should have them all deleted, make a project of the ordeal?" That logic does not follow, especially in light of the fact that some blogs receive much more notable, reliable 3rd party attention which does not appear to be true in this case. Axem Titanium 05:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

By the letter of the law. I'll look into WP:BLOG and explore the possibilities (that will be a project).—Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs)

  • Delete, Do I have to say that for its finality? I didn't mean to cross the line . . . no offense intended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kenneth M Burke (talk • contribs).
  • Delete, I failed to find any non-trivial mentions in independent non-blog sources (links ghits1), and so it seems to fail WP:WEB. Whois indicates the domain was created on 14-Jul-06. There doesn't seem to be any independent sources for an article yet. Groklaw is an example of a blog meeting WP:WEB. skip (t / c) 05:35, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, This blog doesn't have enough notability to be in an encyclopedia. FrancoGG ( talk ) 06:42, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per all of the above, and WP:NOTE. Alex43223 Talk | Contribs | E-mail | C 08:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete fails WP:WEB. In addition, I'd say it's a strawman to say all blogs should be deleted. Many are covered in independent 3rd party sources and meet our requirements. --Larry laptop 17:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Because this is an academic blog of professors, it could potentially be notable. But no evidence has been provided that it is now. What distinguishes this blog from academic blogs like the Volokh Conspiracy is that those other blogs have been regularly cited and quoted in other publications (like the New York Times in a way that clearly establishes notability. Not true of this one. Until the academic culture develops a way for academic blogs to get more notice in other academic publications, it may be, perhaps unfortunately, the popular press that distinguishes between a notable and a non-notable academic blog. --Shirahadasha 21:16, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Kenosis sent me an email of apology (which was not entirley necessary), to which I responded:
Hey, No problem at all, I certainly understand and agree by Wikipedia policy that it really did not belong. Here in the Missouri, U.S. it was late, I just hope that my tone did not come off as too cranky. It was just not a priority for me at the moment to really try to defend the page being on Wiki. Perhaps in the future as I gain experience with the encyclopedia, a policy and project could be designed for academic oriented sites (if not through the encyclopedia, through another site). You arguments were well defined, certainly no need for apology. Do take care, Kenneth.
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.