Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tom Cruise Blog

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete. Woohookitty 07:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Tom Cruise Blog

Delete. WP is not a web directory. Gamaliel 03:13, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. It has a rather substantial hitcount on Google. No less significant than an article on Natalee Holloway. The Peacemaker 03:26, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've got plenty of blogs already on Wiki; one more won't hurt. Jeus
  • Delete. 120 google hits[1] for a blog seems quite low. Pburka 03:40, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Abstain and Comment: I got more hits than that [2] CanadianCaesar 03:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: I don't care how many blogs there are on Wikipedia. The proliferation of evil is no mediation of it, nor can anyone (and I'm getting tired of this) extrapolate from an instance to a class. Some blogs are leaders, forerunners, innovators, and some are just the weekly mass-forwarded e-mail ha-ha. This one is of the latter class, and we know this a number of ways. The first is that the article's text has irregular line forms indicating a paste from some other source. The second is that it's already out of date. Wikipedia is not Giggles 'n Grins for the AOL set. Geogre 03:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am normally reasonably inclusionist on blogs. However, a Google search [3] indicates that the blog has not achieved a wide degree of fame despite being about one of the most famous people in the world. Capitalistroadster 04:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, being a blog about someone famous doesn't make you famous. It clearly hasn't, either, given the Google hits. -Splash 05:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Non-notable. tregoweth 06:51, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • I have to go with Delete on this one. The blog, apparently, is not as famous as the name. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Tobycat 06:57, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete -- not notable. - Longhair | Talk 07:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not notable. —Lowellian (talk) 10:57, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Not notable. Lomedae 12:24, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, surely adequately notable jamesgibbon 15:00, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, non-notable blog. Dcarrano 17:47, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. As Jeus mentions, there are many other blogs on Wikipedia. With time, this blog's notoriety will grow. -- Judson 22:49, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. We've got blogs on Drudge, Rosie, and a host of other celebs. I say let it stay. Besides that, it's actually pretty funny.Avivle 23:01, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. NN. The article doesn't even include any claim to notability. --A D Monroe III 00:22, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non notable blog. JamesBurns 07:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Non-notable. Xoloz 17:20, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete non-notable. Elfguy 17:24, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Real
blogs are seldom notable, I don't see why a parody would be any better. Ephemeral to boot. I mean, what happens next month when Tom and Katie break up? -R. fiend 20:49, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Next month you just make the article past tense. HTH. Grace Note 03:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Indrian 16:54, July 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Agree with nominator --Neigel von Teighen 16:56, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Few blogs are notable. This isn't one. -Willmcw 23:01, July 22, 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.