Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Metroblogging

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. - Mailer Diablo 08:05, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metroblogging

I believe this article is just vanity material. Almost all of User:Sean Bonner's contributions (under his name and IPs) appear to take the form of advocating himself, or his sites by inserting links to his name or externals to the blogs he runs. In the vast majority of cases editors have simply removed his additions without paying attention to the systematic nature of his changes. Because of the nature of interlinking blogs, I feel I am not qualified to judge the merit of this article (I can't gauge the site's popularity because its linkspammed all over the internet), but Sean's pattern of self promotion make me strongly suspect that this article is just more vanity material. Gmaxwell 02:19, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please note: Sean has put out a call to the blogosphere effectively asking people from his community to come vote on this VFD. Gmaxwell 12:55, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion about the call for votes moved to the talk page

• Keep. As much as I sympathise with your dealing with Sean Bonner's spam, this does seem to pass the notability test. Alexa rank is [1] 74,000, and they have notable contributors. User:Sdedeo 02:34, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Metroblogging is a big one-of-kind community and definitely Wikipedia-worthy. User:Stabilo Stabilo
• Keep. Metroblogging is a great community run by real people talking about real things. It's definitely Wikipedia worthy. Removing it from the encyclopedia seems to me to be something of a folly. User:tbridge
• Keep. It could use some expanding and tightening up, but it's certainly a valid subject User:josephfinn
• Delete, vanity. Proto t c 13:56, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but needs some expansion on what sort of writing it actually involves to be notable. So far, all we have is that some well-known people do it. --Zetawoof 16:00, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and needs expansion. By the way. There are a ton of links from metblogs to wikipedia. Are those spam links too? --Illtillwillkillbill 16:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, vanity. DV8 2XL 18:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, first off, let me say that I'm a friend of Sean's and write for a Metroblogging site, just to be up front about it. I think that a good argument can be made that Sean hasn't added this for vanity reasons since he doesn't even have a page about himself on Wikipedia. I also think that various Metroblogging sites have become sources for up to the minute news during some disasters. The current devastation in New Orleans from Hurricane Katrina and the two attacks on London's subway system are good examples. They are sites that are linked to and quoted from major publications and some of the biggest sites on the web. The page needs improvement, but it is defiantly Wikipedia worthy.--Grant 19:14, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete nn website, vanity. Alexa ranking is nowhere near what WP:WEB wants. Having a blog is about as notable as having a goldfish. Several of the keep votes seem to be by editors who created accounts just to come vote on this. Friday (talk) 19:33, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

For the record, the Alexa rank stated above is for metroblogging.com which is only a hub, all metroblogging sites are hosted on metblogs.com which has an Alexa rating of 29,200 [2] - Sean Bonner 19:55, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Too add a bit, that is the cumulative rank for the last 3 months, the current rank as of today is 7,706 [3]. Sean Bonner 20:56, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep I'm a Metroblogging author and I think that information about this blogging community should be available on the Wikipedia. Weblogs, Inc. and Gawker Media have Wikipedia pages, and the Metroblogging concept is similar, so why delete this article? - Mostlymuppet 20:57, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP It is not vanity, Sean has his own blog: http://www.seanbonner.com/. unisigned comment by User:12.111.139.2
• Delete as nonnotable vanity spam. I would hope that all votes of newbies being dragged in as sockpuppets or meatpuppets would be ignored as an attempt to game the system. DreamGuy 22:40, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP Metroblogging is notable. It's a large community that spans many hundreds of authors across the world. They cover most of the major cities in the western world. Users contributing are considered to be quite note worthy as well. ioerror
• Keep Alexa ranking far above threshhold. --Arcadian 23:25, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Comment In alexa, high numbers represent low traffic. Lower number are better. Friday (talk) 00:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

The previous threshold was far too low. I have made it something sane. 12.111.139.2 01:33, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep The article appears (mostly) verifiable and NPOV. The participation of notable bloggers speaks for the notability of the network. Mr. Bonner's appeal to the "blogosphere" does not appear to be in bad faith. New users are to be treated with civility and their comments considered, even if their votes are not tallied (per VfD precedent). Dystopos 23:40, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable enough despite sock invasion. Capitalistroadster 00:02, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Keep - Blogging, the most overrated thing ever, now everyone has their 15 minutes of fame, from other bloggers who read yours, it's like your opinion is important!. At least Sean Bonner actually cares about this entry, unlike that Cyrus guy, who keeps on claiming he doesn't care, yet constantly blogging about it all the time. But if it really has had the international attention like the article says, it's probably worth keeping. But remove the links to individual blogs, and just link to metablogging. - Hahnchen 00:57, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak keep, though if the socks keep it up I'll change my vote. Gamaliel 01:04, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. If there is to be any debate it should be on why we are wasting our time on Wikipedia, which allows anyone to goof up your words rather than on Metroblogging. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ospheric (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, non-notable vanity spam. I hope the sock- and meatpuppets stay around and write useful articles, instead of just showing up to stuff the "ballotbox" Nandesuka 11:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I've posted a question concerning notablity/non-notablity on the talk page and would appreciate some insight. Thank you. Sean Bonner 15:44, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

• Conditional keep, under the condition of reducing the linkspam. The list of links in the article is as long as the article itself, certainly such a notable blog must have its own link list page that could be referenced here? The Hokkaido Crow 16:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the links to individual blogs. They are all, in fact, linked from the home page of the main metroblog site. Dystopos 16:53, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Trivial, even without the linkspam. Pilatus 16:40, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete, Hate Sockpuppets Delete all Pages with Them Also Varsity

--Aranda56 02:45, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a single sockpuppet that voted. All of the new users that came on to vote I know, so I know they are not just dupicate accounts that Sean has made. Now, that doesn't mean we have to count their votes, but they aren't sockpuppets.--Grant 17:14, 3 September 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.