Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gardening blog
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Gardening blog
- Delete per WP:NOT.--Peta 03:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination. Fabricationary 03:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I've deleted the link list so it conforms with WP:NOT, yet I still don't see this article getting anywhere. Are there any other articles describing different types of blogs? If so I can't see the harm in this one. Maybe just a newbies article made in good faith.--Andeh 06:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- There is, in fact, a number of articles on types of blogs and even a Types of blogs article that ties them together. Comparing it with some other type-of-blog articles, it looks like this is in line with them. I do think (as did the first-contact editor) that this is a good-faith new-editor's attempt. (See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Outside views, please....) — Saxifrage ✎ 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak keep. My reason is in two parts. First, WP:NOT-a-links-directory is not a reason to delete an article: only if the subject is unencyclopedic does an article deserve deletion. Second, as I said in my comment above, this sort of thing seems to be in line with other articles and so is arguably encyclopedic. — Saxifrage ✎ 07:39, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Comment, this should really be generalized as hobby blog. There are hobby blogs for gardening, woodworking, house remodeling, car restoration ... you name it. They don't all need Wikipedia articles, I can't imagine how useful beyond dicdefs any could get. "It's a blog. About gardens/cars/cabinets/chia pets. Sometimes it has pcitures." --Dhartung | Talk 08:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete: The article nearly qualifies as a speedy delete, since it merely restates its title. A gardening blog is a blog on gardening. People might keep gardens, and they might write about their gardens, and they might do that with a blog. There is nothing given here to indicate that this type of blog is different from any other, that this type of blog is especially common, that this type of blog is fundamentally more than blog plus the adjective of "gardening." Geogre 17:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- I would like to apologize for the exasperation in my tone, however. I did not intend to insult the creator of the article, as I'm sure she or he had the best of intents. Geogre 19:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Geogre's excellent reasoning. I'm not sure what (if any) guideline or policy this would fall under, but simple common sense dictates that this sort of article has little to no value. Now that I've seen it, quite a few of the Types of blogs sister articles should probably be brought to AfD.--Isotope23 18:02, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. States nothing beyond the obvious. No sources. Fagstein 18:04, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - after looking at a bunch of pages in the blog categories, I'm starting to think quite a few should be deleted, except those that have some sort of specific historical interest. (I'm the first-contact editor... I agree with Saxifrage in that I don't think it was intended as spam per se, but it's certainly unencyclopedic. SB_Johnny | talk 19:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. No info beyond the obvious. --Improv 19:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Geogre, unsourced. --Coredesat talk. ^_^ 00:38, 29 July 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.
