Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Samizdata: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 12:19, 16 November 2005

Samizdata

not notable, one sentence article Skrewler 02:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, plus amount of google search results greatly over exaggerated due to various blog indexes linking to the site. --Timecop 02:11, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. -- Femmina 02:13, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
NN blogcruft, delete. ComCat 02:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable British blog nearly two million Google results for Samizdata see [1] Three Google news results [2]. We need criteria in WP:WEB covering blogs. We have them for Web Comics which are far less important in the scheme of things. Capitalistroadster 02:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- All 3 google news links are to blogs, which actually have nothing to do with the Samizdata site. Also out of 2 million google results, a huge portion is blog indexes linking to the site. --Timecop 02:43, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. useless 65.34.232.136 02:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Samizdata is an extremely well known politics blog. However, I would be surprised if there is a literature about the blog that would satisfy the requirements of WP:V. Certainly I don't think anything more than a couple of sentences could be written about it in encyclopedic fashion. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a directory of everything in existence. It is an encyclopedia: it covers subjects which have already been studied and/or reported on, and about which there is at least some literature that will satisfy the citation and verificatory requirements of an tertiary reference. I am therefore inclined to ask for a ~~delete~~. I can be persuaded to ask for a redirect, either to an article on the Russian theme behind the name or to a general article on politics blogs. encephalon 03:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC) Update: A redirect to Samizdat is sensible. encephalon 10:26, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this one-liner somewhere near the bottom of Samizdat and redirect the title. ~~~~ 07:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
Keep Editors should be aware that this page has been targetted by a systematic effort by several users to erase all blog-related entires. The organzing list is here. Editors should also be aware of the systemic bias identified in Wikipedia against non-American content.--Simon.Pole 09:00, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- This has nothing to do with systematic bias or other bullshit. This is a vanity page for a BLOG. --Timecop 09:05, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. The bullshit is systematically targetting all blog-related entries for deletion. That is a profound level of bullshit. Quite extraordinary, really.--Simon.Pole 09:12, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Will the both of you kindly mind WP:CIVIL? Thanks. I'm sure you can both express your opinions on the merits of the page with your customary decorum. Regards encephalon 09:16, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Samizdat per Freakofnurture. None of the Google News links are about the blog (only mention it in passing) is it cited by some source like the BBC or something? - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep Blogs are a sister phenomenon comparable in significance to Wikis, if not more so, and this blog certainly appears to be notable. No reason to discard this prior to determining a policy on blogs. Ombudsman 10:41, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. -EnSamulili 11:18, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blogs, generally, do not require encyclopedic treatment and this is no exception. Simon.Pole's outburst is surprising: the presence of an organised effort to remove such entries is perfectly acceptable insofar as there are legitimate grounds to contest the validity of such entries. If the effort leads to a consensus to keep or delete, all the better, no? Dottore So 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Delete blogs generally? I hope not. That would kill of Slashdot as well which certainly needs encyclopedic treatment. That's the danger of generalizing. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- You misread my comment. I said blogs, generally - not blogs, universally. I would vote to keep Slashdot absolutely and many others. But there are millions of blogs and imo the vast majority of them don't meet the standard for an entry. I think that about most schools though, so it may just be that my forked tail is souring my mood and obscuring my vision. Dottore So 12:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Worthless, worthless, worthless. Did I say 'worthless'? --86.2.56.178 12:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 *'''Delete''' blogs, generally, do not require encyclopedic treatment and this is no exception.  [[User:Simon.Pole|Simon.Pole]]'s outburst is surprising: the presence of an organised effort to remove such entries is perfectly acceptable insofar as there are legitimate grounds to contest the validity of such entries.  If the effort leads to a consensus to keep or delete, all the better, no? [[User:Dottoreso|Dottore So]] 11:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 **'''Comment''': Delete blogs generally? I hope not. That would kill of [[Slashdot]] as well which certainly needs encyclopedic treatment. That's the danger of generalizing. - [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm]]|[[User talk:MacGyverMagic|<sup>(talk)</sup>]] 12:01, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
+** You misread my comment.  I said blogs, generally - not blogs, universally.  I would vote to keep [[Slashdot]] absolutely and many others.  But there are millions of blogs and imo the vast majority of them don't meet the standard for an entry.  I think that about most schools though, so it may just be that my forked tail is souring my mood and obscuring my vision. [[User:Dottoreso|Dottore So]] 12:19, 16 November 2005 (UTC)
 *'''Delete''' Worthless, worthless, worthless. Did I say 'worthless'? --[[User:86.2.56.178|86.2.56.178]] 12:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)