Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belgian Blogosphere

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. —Cleared as filed. 13:11, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See also Blogosphere (AfD discussion) and Canadian blogosphere (AfD discussion).

Not notable, should we also have Latvian Blogosphere? Skrewler 01:39, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we are supposed to be providing users with the sum of human knowledge, why shouldn't we have Latvian blogosphere if there is enough content? Kappa 02:03, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is NOT supposed to be providing users with the sum of human knowledge. There is a great deal of information that does not have a place in this encyclopedia. Andrew Levine 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If information is part of the sum of human knowledge, it obviously belongs here or in some other wikimedia project. Kappa 05:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it does not "obviously" belong anywhere. Tell me, to which Wikimedia project should I add the complete cast and crew of the school play I was in when I was in 4th Grade? Or the full list of official guests received by President Clinton during the month of February 1996? Or the complete texts of the dozens of love letters that my great-grandfather wrote to my great-grandmother a century ago? All of this stuff is verifiable human knowledge. But in terms of notability, none of it rises beyond being subtrivial. Andrew Levine 22:52, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wow. Please add that latter two to wikisource as valuable historic records. We can probably live without the first one. Kappa 01:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • What's wrong with the first one, it's factual human knowledge isn't it? The fact is, we can agree that it belongs nowhere on Wikimedia. As for the correspondence between my zayda and bubbe, I should point out that they were nobody famous at all. Mash notes between a seamstress and a tobacco shop owner hardly constitute "historical documents." Andrew Levine 04:45, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • I don't object to the inclusion of the cast list, but I think it's unlikely to be of use to anyone. I strongly disagree about the value of the "mash notes", why would you take that resource away from future researchers into 20th century culture and language? Kappa 10:20, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I would don't see any evidence that the Belgian blogosphere lacks notability. - SimonP 02:44, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Request for clarification. I could understand a Flemish blogosphere. How would French-speaking Belgians inhabit a distinct part of cyberspace from Parisians or Quebecois? Durova 02:58, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. I would support merging any useful info on French or Dutch blogs to pages on Francophone blogosphere or Dutch-language blogosphere (or something like that) if someone felt they were worthwhile enough to create. Andrew Levine 04:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete One article on blogs is enough. 65.34.232.136 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep discussing the blogosphere of all the countries in the world would create a horrendously long article. And if we have Canadian blogosphere, I don't see the use in splitting the Belgian one. There's both French and English speaking Canadians and that one isn't split either. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:50, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only problem with that logic is you assume articles for "each country blogosphere" are needed. They aren't. Bloggers are bloggers. It's same scum no matter what country you are from. --Timecop 02:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we don't need individual national blogosphere articles. Dottore So 10:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: There is no such thing as a Belgian Blogosphere, or an American one, or a Canadian one. The Internet is global. Contributors to the Moravian blog might be Japanese. Extending national borders or, worse, ethnic identifications, into the Internet and then claiming that there is some extension of this into a content designation, is silly, counter-productive, and the fruit of boredom or malevolence. Geogre 11:49, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - there is such a thing as a Belgian blogosphere. How many Americans are interested in Belgian matters, or speak Flemish? It's naive to claim that just because there's international interest, that there are no national blocs on the internet. --MacRusgail 13:43, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Non-Belgians can write Flemish, and many can write French. The point is that there is no "there" in the Internet except for the URL. In this case, it's not an article about a URL, nor is it an article that describes a distinction of difference. This is an article not about a specific place, nor specific site, nor a collection of sites that have anything in common than that they are assumed to be from the nation-state of Belgium. The article makes no effort at establishing what that means. Once we get away from actual space and into virtual space, how is the Belgian designation greater than some micronation's? Geogre 18:35, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because the article has nothing to say other than "there are bloggers in Belgium too". It makes no claims of particular notability for any Belgian bloggers, and completely fails to identify any points that distinguish blogging in Belgium from blogging anywhere else in the world. Remove the words "Belgian" and "Flemish", and it would be impossible to distinguish this from a generic article on blogs. What next - an article on Belgian rabbits ("The common rabbit lives all over the world, including in Belgium. It is a small mammal...")? — Haeleth Talk 16:59, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Article appears to have verifiable information, is NPOV, and notable enough for me FRS 18:00, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. -- Femmina 22:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. -- Why is this even close to relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.91.19 (talk • contribs)
• Strong Delete. How on Gods green earth is this notable or relevant in any way? --Impi.za 00:10, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thi is the user's 7th edit. The user has edited only AfD discusssions. -Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is notable. The article covers local things that can't be moved to the blogosphere article. I also have nothing against the article on Latvian blogosphere. -Hapsiainen 00:54, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; there's so much crap on wikipedia already, why delete potentially useful information? Matt Yeager 01:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you believe something is crap on wikipedia, please AfD it. That is really an inane argument for keeping a worthless article. Skrewler 04:25, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There appears to be a war on blogs going on. The Canadian blogosphere article has also been targetted. Editors should be aware of the systemic bias that has been identified in Wikipedia against non-American, non-Anglophone entries, of which this is one.--Simon.Pole 08:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. More stupid blogging crap. Enough already. --86.2.56.178 12:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete This doesn't deserve a whole article written about it, absolutely ridiculous. Delete. --Depakote 12:33, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The internet reduced the importance of nationality, but it doesn't come close to eliminating it. Carina22 12:53, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This is silliness. As rightly pointed out above, blogs are global, like everything on the internet. Also, I don't see anything verifiable here, insofar as anything useful can be said about Belgian blogs, it's probably original research. Friday 19:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, notable. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:59, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Please note: It has been determined the mass deletion of blog-related entries at Wikipedia is being organized by the notorious internet troll group the GNAA. User:Timecop, who has the list of targetted entires here, is actually is actually the "President" of the GNAA, as you can see in this "press release" from their website. This whole vfd is a farce.--Simon.Pole 10:37, 16 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete- Haeleth summed it up perfectly. Reyk 01:21, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Organized deletion vandalism merits banning. --FOo 05:16, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Please discount this vote on the pretext that the user is not evaluating VfDs on the basis of validity but on accusations of vandalism. --Veew 13:37, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete blogcruft.  Grue  18:57, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep notable. mennonot 11:31, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fight against undiscriminated deletion of all blog-related material in WP. __earth 03:57, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.