Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:34, 15 August 2005

Speedy Keep Report User:209.19.42.2 for bravery in the face of bad writing. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...what's wrong with this article?

Needs fixing, not deletion.

Tom

Delete well, it's pretty poorly written, I think, but I dont' have a lot to offer in the way of how to correct it. In glancing through the first thing that struck me is the paragraph "Like all biological systems. . ." Which strikes me as more opinion than fact; you'd have a hard time convincing me that a 'blog' is a biological system any more than a grocery store is (because there's people there).

Also, perhaps it should just be merged into the general Blog article -- it's not clear to me that it warrants its own article.

Anyway, my .02. h

Keep: I don't understand why some people are so fond of deleting other people's perfectly good articles. I am a little shocked to find out that wikipedia didn't already have an article called blogosphere. Now that someone has written one, I think the last thing we need to do is to kill it. What's wrong with people? Whirling Dervishes 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: dunno what this specific users's problem is, but they don't fix anything all they do is mark it to be deleted for fixed. --Buridan 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Send for cleanup. --Randy Johnston 20:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Blogsphere is an important word and I never looked it up, now I just clicked on it from another article and shocked to to see it up for deletion? Then where I find about the history of this term? Encarta? Hah I don't think so. --Saint-Paddy 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Words like "blogosphere" are a vandalisation of the English language!! I find it truly disgusting!!

You know, it's funny that two hundred years ago, the word 'vandalisation' would have been considered an affront to the English language, what with being a French neologism not even properly anglicized by giving it an '-ize' ending. Oh yeah, Keep.

Keep and Clean. --Theredstarswl 00:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The language changes, and the word is an important recent change. Vigorous editing or even re-writing would help, thoug.

Keep --- it's just the sort of thing someone would come to Wikipedia to find out about if they didn't already know. If the content stinks, we can fix that. --- Mike 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and Shoot all bloggers! Actually, keep, and rewrite - at the moment it sounds incredibly pretentious... --HiddenInPlainSight 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, hmackiernan makes a valid point, but not a good one in my opinion. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is it's entries on such a wide range of topics. The only change/addition I would suggest is a mention of Headmaps "Blogosphere" (http://www.headmap.org/). This project explores the Physical/Technological and Social phenomena associated the "real world/biological" impact of the Blogosphere. Maybe some mention of Carl Jungs 'communal mind' should be made as far as what we as humans are grappling with here as far as this technological r/evolution goes.

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Anyway, my .02.
-[[User::hmackiernan|h]]
+[[User:hmackiernan|h]]
 ----
 '''Keep''': I don't understand why some people are so fond of deleting other people's perfectly good articles. I am a little shocked to find out that wikipedia didn't already have an article called [[blogosphere]]. Now that someone has written one, I think the last thing we need to do is to kill it. What's wrong with people? [[User:Whirling Dervishes|Whirling Dervishes]] 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)