Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Committee to Protect Bloggers

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 00:30, Feb 10, 2005 (UTC)

Committee to Protect Bloggers
Blogger vanity. Wile E. Heresiarch 06:56, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Comment: I put up this page because I think this group is important. I am in no way involved with the group, I just found the link a few weeks ago in my RSS feed.  I think people need to know about people for whom content contribution online is a physically dangerous practice. --Mdog 07:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for the promotion of your favorite blogs. Wile E. Heresiarch 07:14, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit new for comfort, but keep especially if no appropriate merger (some general article on blogosphere-real life interaction controversies?) can be found. This group is not itself a blog. Samaritan 07:38, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think that failure to include this page and a link to it from Weblog leaves an inacurate story being told regarding the political climate around blogging. We read that the DNC and RNC accredited bloggers, but not about how bloggers in other places are facing state repression for blogging?  That doesn't seem benificial to wikipedia's coverage of blogs. --Mdog 07:41, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * The coverage of repression related to blogs should be made via new content in the Weblog article. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 08:01, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Too new (days old!) to be notable.  It certainly sounds important, but importance is not key... notability is.  At any rate, I'd support an external link to this effort from the Weblog article. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 07:49, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Mikkalai 08:25, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Too new. I can recognize the importance of such a group, but it has yet to do anything at all, hence it isnt notable. Inter 09:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sounds like it could be a worthy cause, but that does not make the committee encyclopedic.  If the only reason to keep a non-encyclopedic article in an encyclopedia is its importance, then the only end served would be promotion.  I applaud the intent of the committee, but Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promotion of causes -- it is an encyclopedia.  SWAdair | Talk  10:44, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, at least for now. Notable topic, yes.  Notable organization?  Maybe.  Give it a chance.  --L33tminion | (talk) 17:42, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to promote new websites or to "give them a chance."  RickK 23:34, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete, if and when this group becomes more notable then perhaps I'll change my vote. Megan1967 00:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems to be generating lots of hype, but maybe it's safer to wait until they have done something. JoaoRicardo 00:44, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Seems notable enough, and it has an Alexa rank of 124! Alexa also gives traffic details for at least August 2004.
 * Nice try. That ranking is for all of blogspot.com and that's no surprise. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 05:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Blogger is currently featuring the site as a 'Blog of Note', and that's the only reason I'm voting for its preservation. O
 * Please provide a link to source this. &mdash; Stevie is the man!  Talk 03:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Found it at . Yeah, because Blogger notices a brand new blog, let's make an encyclopedia article out of it.  This is insanity. &mdash;  Stevie is the man!  Talk 03:49, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not notable, nor expandable (at least yet - no page until it is). --bainer 01:51, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Seems unnotable as of now. Maybe someday. -R. fiend 06:56, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Far too new an organization to evaluate notability without evidence of major impact. And since Wikipedia does not speculate on possible future notability, we should not have an article on it until we can say for certain.   &mdash; Gwalla | Talk 22:49, 2 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.