Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Types of blogs

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion
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 was delete all except Spam blog, Photoblog and Vlog. Suggest that those three are nominated as individual AFDs if anyone still wants those deleted. Petros471 20:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Types of blogs

edit

Fundamentally unverifiable. This appears to be, at its heart, a list of neologisms passings themselves off as some sort of established categorization scheme. Even the article's introduction hints at the failure of a list of thsi sort to represent blogging, and, more importantly from Wikipedia's standpoint, breaking the blogosphere into these convenient, content-based packages seems little more than something someone made up on the Net one day. Has required cleanup since May 2006. Cleanup seems unlikely to arrive. Serpent's Choice 02:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD bundles related articles for deletion along similar reasons, primarily because the terms are dictionary definition entries for neologisms, with no citation or verification besides.
Clubbox is uncited and unverified, and reads, at-best, like advertising material. The article has been the target of vandalism (note the TROLL stub) that has gone uncorrected since 21 April, which does not bode well for its support as more than a neologistic search term. A properly written article would probably be still deletable as dicdef.
Cultural blog is likewise uncited, and consists primarily of a list of blog links. Little-to-no evidence that this rises above neologism. Certaily a dicdef.
Community blog has been tagged unsourced since 19 July. No sources seem to be coming. Article is a dicdef for a neologism, featuring an even more protologistic synonym.
Fictional blog. A cleanup of wording leaves only a dicdef.
Gossip blog. No assertion that the term is in actual use. Point-of-view issues with what stub text is there now.
Online diary is not actually being nominated for AfD in this bundle, as it is already under consideration for a merger to Blog.
Photoblog, tagged unverified since its creation on 6 May. At its heart, a dicdef (the first line of the article). Primary origin of the word itself seems to be the several commercial web domains using the name.
Science blog primarily cites, well, science blogs as proof of its validity, in violation of Wikipedia sourcing guidelines. The Nature article may allow this one to survive, but given its poor sourcing, I am including it in the bundle.
Shock blog. Neologistic dicdef written in anything but NPOV.
Spam blog. Only some of this article even applies to its stated title. Suggest merger of the title-appropriate information to PageRank, Blogger (service), and/or Scraper site, as appropriate, and the other material to Spam in blogs, if needed. This underwent some no-consensus move/merger discussion at a previous time. The phenomenon is real, but I question the term as an article topic (is this neologism in wide use/has it been established as the prefered means of referring to this activity?).
Topical blog, tagged original research, uncited, and inappropriate tone. This is basically a rehash of the Types of blogs entry itself, without the linking.
Vlog, again a real phenomenon, but neologistic with an entry that does not support the general acceptance of the term. Article currently consists of a series of admitted dicdefs, followed by a timeline that does not assert the term itself is in use, followed by a genre list that consists of original research. Anything worth keeping can probably be merged to web syndication.
The remainder of the base article requires no action. Travel log already redirects to travelogue, link blog is redlinked, and hobby blog has no linking at all.
Three entries linked from the base article are not being included in this bundled AfD. Moblog appears to have the basis of an actual article, largely due to apparent national Moblog in Singapore. And Corporate blog (redirected from Business blog) has better documentation, as the phenomenon has been responsible for a great deal of policy discussion in the corporate world, and a lot of in-print ink. It could use some cleanup, but appears to meet WP article expectations. Political blog seems as though it should be able to be worked into an acceptable article. The current one needs extensive work, however.
Please note that the related topic Musical Blogs, although not linked in the Types article, is currently under AfD review as well.
Not forgotten, actually. The moblog article is not much better than the rest, but it makes the claim of a national moblog (using the term) in place in Singapore. I didn't spend the time to check up on the accuracy of that claim, but if a national government has created an officially sanctioned blog (of any sort), that is significant, and if it uses the term, it probably can stand on its own as an article. Probably. Assuming it all checks out, of course. Serpent's Choice 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, try this: you forgot Blogcast :-) Haakon 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All What books are you referencing? All books that I know of where written by those within the community and haven't gained acceptance outside of it.Pdelongchamp 05:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amazon lists these four books in print with the word 'videoblogging' in the title. There are also two books with 'vlog' in the title. I'm not sure what you mean by 'were written by those in the community and haven't gained acceptance outside of it'. Seems like a broad generalization lacking evidence to me. Ekai 08:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyone can write a book, register an ISBN number and automatically have it listed on Amazon. All it takes is 200$ and a few clicks on a book publishing website. Show me something that proves these books are notable. Everything is non notable until proven otherwise. Pdelongchamp 17:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pdelongchamp: If you click on the click I provided above you would see these 4 books come from mainstream book publishers. I don't get the sense that you really are interested in the notability of the subject, but have some personal issue with this. Our votes have been cast, let's move on. Ekai 02:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • You argue that vlog or videoblog isn't a neologism because How-To books were written on it's subject. I can't find anything that says that these are notable books or that the article is well sourced. I consider this article mostly original research as per nom.Pdelongchamp 03:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again, I question the notability of the 4 books. I can't find a notable source that acknowledged their existence. See my previous comment.Pdelongchamp 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm going to have to refer to Amazon as Ekai did. On top of this I'd also like to point out that a) you're out voted, and b) the terms vlog, videoblog and video podcast are all a part of the lexicon right now. Much like spam blog people will be searching for clarification. If you want "blog" removed from the definition then great... let's replace it with journal. While I generally respect what you're doing 90% of the time with the vlog article, I think your constant slashing out EVERY SINGLE edit, because it is indeed every single edit, is what's causing it to stagnate and not involve. It's not even a matter of constructive criticism... one thing is clear... your dominating every aspect of the article... and fundamentally that's not right. This is not a trim and perfect process... it's muddy and it's dirty... but if you give some wiggle room it will evolve. --mmeiser 03:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfortunately, this isn't a popularity contest. Rather, it is a serious discussion over whether the topic of video blog necessitates a separate article. I've place warnings asking for citations on your work. They are never provided. This article is one big piece of original research.Pdelongchamp 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request for specific feedback IN the vlog article Isotope, what would you consider good sourcing? Wired articles? Business week articles? How about the Rolling Stone. Vlogging and vlog company blip.tv was featured prominently in a PBS Now special on prime time TV about net neutrality. Youtube is the hottest damn site on the internet. Though many would shrug it off because it's sensational, a closed platfrom, and other personal issues it is clearly a video blogging platfrom. I can find sources on all these things. They probably should be in the timeline... but what did you have in mind. What does it take? We've got four books... apparently that's not enough... nor a the whole internet world gone mad over video. So what does it take... and if this craze isn't about video blogging than what IS it about... video sharing? I thought that was what P2P and bittorent were about. There's no denying that this is something different... not simply blogging with video... not simply sharing videos. It is certainly bigger than moblogging. It is consumed completely differently and used completely differently than blogging. Does blogging come in 'episodes' like TV... are they watched on portable media players like the iPod and Sony PSP. Perhaps this is all stuff that should be put on the wikipedia article... but my guess is the reason it's not... is because the powers that be have set to work slashing apart the article and anyone who attempts to edit it instead of collaborating on improving it. This has driven off all would be editors... for I've spoken to a great many of them... I ask is wikipedia getting setting so high a standard that no collaboration is possible? Or... is it more likely that certain people (not you) have set their own standard so high that noone else can live up to it. I have no doubt that many of the complaints about the article are justified... all that I've spoken to have complained about it... particularly the genres section, but mostly that it hasn't evolved... that every attempt to evolve it is immediately shot down. And I beg you to look at the history of the article... don't take my word for it... so at the least cite some guide for citations... or pretend like we're all human beings and actually *explain to me* what is lacking or best of all *cite specific example* by going through the page and adding in comments like *citation needed* like I see on many, many other wikipedia articles... Sorry dude, my frustration is not aimed at you... we need an end to slash and burn gate keeping of articles and more collaboration. I'm working on it offline too. P.S. Yeah I type a lot... people tell me that... but they also say I illustrate my points very well... so hopefully there's no crime with illustrating your points longhand on wikipedia. Just leaping at the opportunity to get back to the real issue.--mmeiser 05:57, 17 August 2006 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Types_of_blogs&oldid=1069802217"