- 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 Redirect JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As per poker blog. A soldier blog is a blog by/about a soldier... so, how is this encyclopedic? Skrewler 05:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Merged definition into List of blogging terms. The rest of the article is blatant advertisement for nn blogs. --Timecop 05:46, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Nothing more than a definition (even though a very detailed one), and a list of websites that fit the definition. Also delete as per arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poker blog. Saberwyn 05:49, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Will support redirect to List of blogging terms with later breakout as secondary option. If kept, can those interested in keeping the article find some non-U.S. Armed Forces blogs and some non-Iraqui War blogs to counter systemic bias? Saberwyn 10:41, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and rename. Well known form of blogging but should be renamed as Milblogging with 139,000 Google hits see [1] and one Googlenews return [2]. Important and interesting phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 05:52, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- No doubt. But there's already an entry for 'Milblog' at List of blogging terms and its briefly mentioned at Blog as well. What more do you need? Certainly a 20-something spamlist of links to blogs isn't a criteria for keeping this junk. --Timecop 06:05, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. -- Femmina 06:08, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Saberwyn. - Randwicked 07:04, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote). JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. There are already comprehenisve lists of milblogs elsewhere & this is not encyclopedic. Per CR's point, the number of duplicates on Google is quite high. ([3] ca. 660 out of the 1000 returned sample). Granted, the extrapolation is still some 60,000 hits, but when you factor in the inflationary factor created by tags, banners, cross-links, etc..., etc... the result size surely dwindles much further still. That is not to say that this should be elided, but coverage at List of blogging terms is adequate. Dottore So 08:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Why should this garbage be on here? Incognito 12:38, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above --Depakote 12:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to List of blogging terms, per usual procedure for merges. Note that this nomination may be part of a GNAA troll campaign. This is not to encourage you to vote keep, but merely something you should keep in mind before casting your vote. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 14:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect so people who type this find the entry on the List of blogging terms. - Mgm|(talk) 09:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. According to the official Deletion Guidelines at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_policy, the problems cited above are merely content issues and should be amended through the editing process. Prejudicial statements suggest a troll campaign. Nothing in the article is in direct violation of the Wikipedia Deletion Guidelines. This applies to Skrewler's wider campaign against Wikipedia blog listings. -- 58.143.156.115 21:44, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- vote discounted by closing admin (ip vote) JtkieferT | C | @ ---- 01:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete dictdef. Grue 13:32, 19 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, this is funny, though. --Daniel11 01:52, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- sock
- Keep Troll campaign being waged against blogs by GNAA --dustmans 14:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to list of blogging terms, otherwise delete. *drew 13:56, 24 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.