Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosphere2

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP. There is no need for 5 days of debate on this, the voting among non-anons is already substantial and unanimous and shows no sign of dissent. Including the anons (who probably legitimately came across the article), it is even clearer. Finally, note that the article has been around since October 2003 and has previously had a similarly unanimous VfD!-Splash 02:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Blogosphere
Speedy Keep Report User:209.19.42.2 for vandalism. Stirling Newberry - Bopnews 23:03, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Note: This article's VfD tag was placed by an anon user (209.19.42.2, see here: ) but this subpage was started by the above user. This article has been nominated on VfD before on Apr. 24, 2004 and its previous discussion was to keep it. I'm listing it here on VfD proper just because there is already a discussion in progress. --Andylkl (talk) 07:47, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Umm...what's wrong with this article?
 * Unsigned comment left by 70.17.107.46. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Needs fixing, not deletion. - Tom
 * Unsigned comment left by 69.22.253.2. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it's pretty poorly written, I think, but I dont' have a lot to offer in the way of how to correct it. In glancing through the first thing that struck me is the paragraph "Like all biological systems. . ." Which strikes me as more opinion than fact; you'd have a hard time convincing me that a 'blog' is a biological system any more than a grocery store is (because there's people there). Also, perhaps it should just be merged into the general Blog article -- it's not clear to me that it warrants its own article. Anyway, my .02. - h


 * Keep: I don't understand why some people are so fond of deleting other people's perfectly good articles. I am a little shocked to find out that wikipedia didn't already have an article called blogosphere. Now that someone has written one, I think the last thing we need to do is to kill it. What's wrong with people? Whirling Dervishes 19:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep: dunno what this specific users's problem is, but they don't fix anything all they do is mark it to be deleted for fixed.   --Buridan 04:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Send for cleanup. --Randy 20:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep Blogsphere is an important word and I never looked it up, now I just clicked on it from another article and shocked to to see it up for deletion? Then where I find about the history of this term? Encarta? Hah I don't think so. --Saint-Paddy 03:33, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete Words like "blogosphere" are a vandalisation of the English language!! I find it truly disgusting!!
 * Unsigned vote left by 80.98.250.126. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * You know, it's funny that two hundred years ago, the word 'vandalisation' would have been considered an affront to the English language, what with being a French neologism not even properly anglicized by giving it an '-ize' ending. Oh yeah, Keep.
 * "vandalisation" still isn't a word; the proper form is "vandalism". But definitely keep. JDoorjam 22:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Unsigned vote left by Unigolyn. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and Clean. --Theredstarswl 00:03, 7 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The language changes, and the word is an important recent change. Vigorous editing or even re-writing would help, thoug.
 * Unsigned vote left by Aquaeus. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep --- it's just the sort of thing someone would come to Wikipedia to find out about if they didn't already know. If the content stinks, we can fix that. --- Mike 02:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete, and Shoot all bloggers! Actually, keep, and rewrite - at the moment it sounds incredibly pretentious... --HiddenInPlainSight 16:30, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, hmackiernan makes a valid point, but not a good one in my opinion. One of the strengths of Wikipedia is it's entries on such a wide range of topics. The only change/addition I would suggest is a mention of Headmaps "Blogosphere" (http://www.headmap.org/). This project explores the Physical/Technological and Social phenomena associated the "real world/biological" impact of the Blogosphere. Maybe some mention of Carl Jungs 'communal mind' should be made as far as what we as humans are grappling with here as far as this technological r/evolution goes.
 * Unsigned vote left by Zephyr46. --Andylkl (talk) 07:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and cleanup. Topic worth saving on Wikipedia. --Andylkl (talk) 07:13, August 18, 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep, the term Blogosphere is a well-known and common term referring to the whole concept of weblogs, and thus should be explained in Wikipedia. It is a significant and important part of popular culture.  Consider that ten, twenty, fifty or 100 years from now, people will be looking at this to understand how we lived (much as people look at paper records to discover things about our ancestors).  This is the sort of thing it is important to have here.  Paul Robinson 09:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep; I hear it all the time. --Merovingian (t) (c) 09:41, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, real expression. Punkmorten 11:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. -- DS1953 16:50, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. It's a pretty shitty word, but it exists, and is really used by people. Maddox has even written about it on The Best Page In The Universe -- Unsigned vote left by 213.220.100.100 -- GregAsche 01:01, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep even though it is irritating. Trollderella 18:17, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. So I know what to avoid. Alf 22:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. This word is used all the time in the blogosphere. Seriously, an online search of The New York Times shows that that erstwhile dead-tree institution mentioned it in 56 articles in the years 2000 through 2005, inclusive. August 5, 2005 contains an article called "Measuring the Blogosphere." It is a completely legitimate word and I expect it to appear in the next editions of the print dictionaries. The article isn't even all that bad. Dpbsmith (talk) 01:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reasonable article on real phenomenon. Capitalistroadster 01:22, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep -Splash 02:47, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.