Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of weblogs

List of weblogs

Wikipedia is not a web directory. Besides, List of notable weblogs just went through VfD, where the overwhelming decision was to Delete. However, the action taken was to redirect to this equally lame article. This action went against the Wikicracy.

• What? This has been through VfD. Why put it back so soon? I like the structure now (though the formatting may leave something to be desired.) I'm not going to remove this from VfD, but I feel as though the community has already decided on keeping this and our efforts would be better spent copyediting the article. Keep. --Ardonik.talk() 22:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. We have List of search engines, list of web comics, list of news web sites, and list of wikis. Why are blogs somehow less worthy? - SimonP 22:28, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
  • Because there are possibly millions of weblogs and it's difficult to draw the line at which ones are notable enough to be in the wikipedia. A page like this would need daily babysitting from people wanting to advertise their sites. ~leif @ 22:52, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
    • Comment: at the risk of repeating my words from prior discussions, there is a simple solution for this: disallow both red links and external links from the article. The article would still need babysitting to keep the linkspammers out, but at least it would be clear what to take out and what to keep in. --Ardonik.talk() 23:12, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
    • List of people is not open to all six billion of us, and similarly list of weblogs should not contain all blogs. All Wikipedia lists are limited to items that deserve encyclopedia articles. - SimonP 23:26, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
      • • Comment. There is no such rule. Because someone or something appears in a list in Wikipedia does not mean that a list item must either be acceptable for a full article or must be dropped from the list. Imagine: unable to list particular kings in a list on Wikipedia because we don't know anything about them except that they appear on ancient lists. Demanding removal of every number in List of prime numbers that doesn't deserve an encyclopedia article. Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
      • I suppose if the list was limited as Ardonik suggests above, there isn't anything wrong with it, but I don't see how such a list is any better than just using the Category system. I mostly am opposed to this list based on the fact that a good deal of wikipedia lists are full of red links and external links. I'll change my vote to Keep-with-restrictions. ~leif @ 23:36, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • I would support deleting list of wiki and the other lists you profile for similar reasons. These lists can easily get out of control with promotions. And again, this is what web directories are for. -- Stevietheman 05:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, or redirect to Category:Weblogs, or keep with note disallowing red-or-external links. If a weblog is notable enough to be on wikipedia, it should have an article, and it will show up in the category view. Incidentally, a few days ago I edited List of weblogs to redirect to Category:Weblogs (instead of a nonexistant section on Weblogs which it had been redirecting to for quite some time before). Now I can't find any record of my making that edit... Did someone move another page on top of List of weblogs and obliterate the previous history somehow? Just wondering, because I know I made that edit. Anyhow, delete or redirect-to-category is fine with me.~leif @ 22:30, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

adding to my confusion, I noticed that I appear to have edits listed on Talk:List of weblogs that I actually posted to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs. I now see that User:SimonP moved moved that VfD discussion on top of this article. My comments refered to List of weblogs in the context of being on the VfD page for List of notable weblogs, and are out of place now. Why was that page moved?~leif @ 22:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• delete this is just asking for a list of sveral thoudsand weblogsGeni 22:45, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment: those who are voting on this topic anew should look at the recently closed Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of notable weblogs (it was, in fact, delisted from VfD just this morning), the presence of which is the basis for my vote to keep. --Ardonik.talk() 23:08, Sep 16, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This is the sort of thing that can be done far better by the "outside" web. And it's just asking for abuse from bloggers anxious to boost their Google pageranks. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 00:20, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete, replace with/redirect to category. List of notable weblogs should have also been deleted. -Sean Curtin 03:02, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. I believe it is nessesary to have a list of more notable blogs so people could see what a blog is really all about, or to see what's popular in the blogging community. The page would have to be watched so as to exclude non-famous ones, but that's really true with any web-oriented list. And the fact this has already been through VfD (and survived, obviously) adds to the fact that it should be kept. It's double jeopardy, and I know that surviving VfD once does not guarentee immunity, this was rather quick. But, the suggestion to make sure the blog has an article isn't too bad of a second place. -- KneeLess 04:55, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • Delete, only on the condition that the Weblogs category stays. -- KneeLess 04:33, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Comment - what was wrong with List of notable weblogs as a title? Better than this, anyway. If the rule is, no redlinks, no external links, then this would be justifiable, but I suspect it is too open to abuse, and would require round-the-clock monitoring. Unconvinced either way. Average Earthman 11:23, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. People can use links from the Weblog article for more information. There would be nothing wrong with more links in that article pointing to sites that contain their own individually maintained lists of notable blogs. But keep such things at arms length from Wikipedia. Because things change so quickly, maintaining a list of up-to-date weblogs which are currently notable would be "original research", similar to maintaining a unique list of currently popular songs within Wikipedia (instead of links here and there to external lists or reproducing data from such lists). And exactly who is going to "own" this article if it continues to exist? Who is going to do the original research to determine notability month by month? Jallan 16:38, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete - Wikipedia is not a web directory - Tεxτurε 19:08, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep with extreme prejudice. If this survives again I hope we wait at least another month. This page has no direct links, and the topic doesn't seem inherently unencyclopedia. Significant weblogs could and should be discussed for their impact. At best, move to "list of notable web logs" and cleanup. CHL 23:29, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
  • "Survives again?" When did it survive before? The result of the only previous VfD I know of was to delete List of notable weblogs. But before that article was actually deleted, someone moved it's VfD page to this (List of weblogs) article's talk page, and moved some of the content to the article under the heading Notable weblogs. Note also that prior to that VfD the List of weblogs article was just a broken redirect, not a list. So as far as I'm concerned, this is an edit of the same list we already voted on. And it didn't survive the first time, so the article should have already been deleted. ~leif 19:25, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• You're right. SimonP. Interesting. That does seem to go against wikicracy. Nonetheless still keep. There are no external links in the article now. CHL 02:43, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. It's an open-ended, non-encyclopedic list. It's gotta go. --Improv 16:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. It is inherently incomplete and hence biased. There are zillions of them.Mikkalai 05:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, send to cleanup. Maybe it just needs to be organised better. OK, maybe it seems "open ended" but if it was organised, it could be a useful resource. There's a list of everything else on this wiki, why not a list of weblogs? --Ce garcon 02:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. The problem is how do you determine whether a weblog is notable or not? --Lowellian 19:43, Sep 21, 2004 (UTC)