Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chess blogs

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 Delete. --Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 07:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic; we can not have pages describing all the possible topics that can be found on blogs. Article is orphan. All relevant links in the article have been added to the main chess article. Delete Schutz 01:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Why not? Is there an article number limit I haven't heard about? CalJW 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This actually is an interesting phenomenon, and could become a valuable article if cleaned up. — The Hooded Man ♃♂ 03:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per The Hooded Man. -- JJay 03:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Ezeu 03:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a list of nn blogs is not an encyclopedia article. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Zoe. -- Kjkolb 05:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess. Doomed to be a stub forever or a dictionary definition. It is simply about blogs that are about chess. What more is there to say? Logophile 05:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Zoe. Blogs aren't usually notable. karmafist 06:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:NOT a Web directory or collection of external links. FCYTravis 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - will always be just a dicdef + a collection of links, neither of which Wikipedia "is". (ESkog)^(Talk) 06:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess. --Thephotoman 06:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--Bkwillwm 07:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I approve the merge comments, but since I copied the relevant links to the main Chess article (see nom), I think the merge has effectively already been done. Schutz 09:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I wouldn't say delete if there was something special about chess blogs; some sort of unique software intended specifically for them or an organization devoted to them or really anything to indicate that a chess blog is anything more than a blog about chess. Snurks ^{T C} 09:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete! I though we had nixed the last of these with Poker blog. Blog cruft however you look at it. - Randwicked 10:49, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete list of nn blogs, now doubly unnecessary due to the work done above by Schutz. Eusebeus 11:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect, or else delete, as per the many wonderful arguments above. Chess blogity does not stand as a notable subject on its own. Lord Bob 13:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Chess's "external links" section, if it has one, classifying the said blogs into its own sub-heading "Blogs," with a brief description of each; if no section exists, create one, and label "external links." IanManka 15:19, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the "external links" section already has multiple sub-headings, a merge with Chess would substantiate the need for a "Chess blogs" sub-heading within "external links". IanManka 15:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chess blogs contains 4 external links; only 1 is a blog, 3 are indicated as lists of blog. In the "external links" section, I have cited the one blog, and one of the lists which contains most (if not all) links from the others. I don't think there is a need for a new sub-section; the current sections are split according to topics related to chess (programs, organisation, etc), not by technology used by the website which provides the information. Tell me if you think that this is enough to consider that the merge has been done. Schutz 16:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • It looks good; I call it a day. I am changing my vote to delete. IanManka 05:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete r3m0t ^talk 17:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep article seems to be about a genuine phenomenon. NN is irrelevant as it is not official Wiki policy.Jcuk 20:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No matter how many times you say it does not make in any truer than the first time you said it. NN is very much Wikipedia policy. Do not confuse Wikipedia with other Wikis. Zoe (216.234.130.130 16:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
    • Whilst I have no desire to get into a slanging match (which will do neither of us or more importantly Wikipedia any good) I do feel strongly that the statement "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It illustrates standards of conduct, which many editors agree with in principle. However, it is not policy." found on, for example Wikipedia:Biography page says it all. Jcuk 21:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:BIO is a guideline on what is covered under WP:NOT, speficially "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information" and "Wikipedia is not a link repository", and WP:NOT is a policy. --Last Malthusian 17:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry I dont see your point. WP:BIO specifically says that what is on that page is not policy. It cant possiby not be policy on one page and policy on another? If that were so, some serious clearing up would need to be done to remove the ambiguity.Jcuk 21:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • See WP:CSD#Articles, which is official policy, under "Unremarkable people". Zoe (216.234.130.130 21:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC))[reply]
        • It is not policy that people who don't meet any of the criteria in WP:BIO don't meet notability criteria. It is policy that notability criteria exist. If you say 'I believe that this person is notable even though he doesn't meet WP:BIO', that makes sense if you justify it. If you say 'This person isn't in any way notable but I don't care', then you're ignoring policy. --Last Malthusian 09:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd have to say that WP:CSD#Articles being official policy, and WP:BIO NOT being official policy seems very odd. If according to CSD notability in Bios IS official policy it's ludicrous to then say it's not in BIO. However this is getting way off the mark, as the vote here is about Chess Blogs. Jcuk 22:03, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. We have the CSDs to avoid cluttering up AfD with articles that have no chance of survival, including blatant vanity articles. We have the WP:BIO and similar guidelines so that Wikipedians can give exact, precise, quick reasons for why the subject is notable or not by referring to the appropriate guidelines, without having to explain their reasoning over and over again in separate discussions. Two separate reasons, both perfectly valid. The reason one is policy and the other not is because an article that meets a CSD has no merit whatsoever, while an article that doesn't meet WP:BIO etc. may have some other virtue that we overlooked when creating the guidelines. --Last Malthusian 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary or a collection of external links, and we don't need a billion articles on subject + the word 'blog'. There is precedent for this - see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Poker_blog, which resulted in a delete. --Last Malthusian 09:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it's worth noting the opinion of one of the voters on [[Poker blog]s: "Delete Nope, sorry, "blogs" are not worth a shit in the real world. JacksonBrown 05:44, 16 November 2005 (UTC)" It just struck me as funny, that's all -- and it might be worthy in this debate. IanManka 04:43, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Chess, content seems worth noting, but not neccesarily on its own.--dev1n 02:38, 19December 2005 (UTC)

  vote actually by 69.231.19.30 (talk · contribs). Lord Bob 00:05, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • • • • • comment this is bat sh*t fu**ing crazy, this much trouble over a blog about chess?--Jonathan Stuart Leibowitz 06:31, 24 December 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.