Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rich Farmbrough/blog

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Snowball keep. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:07, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

User:Rich Farmbrough/blog


WP:NOT Wikipedia is not a blog. This needs to be deleted KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 17:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep it's called a blog but there's no content. Is this procedural approach really required here?  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep WP:USER permits "limited autobiographical and personal content" and what we have here seems quite limited. Warden (talk) 17:58, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment  This seems a bit disingenous to me, especially as it comes less than a day after RF has been blocked and is thus unable to participate in the discussion. Fancy nominating Newyorkbrad's blog as well?-- Gilderien Chat&#124;List of good deeds  18:03, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Agreed, a little pointy considering Rich can't participate. Especially considering the content of the page nominated, it's hardly "breaking news" is it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment @ Colonel Warden WP NotBlog Forbids blogs on user pages, and @Gilderien,   WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is a poor argument.   If he wants a blog, other services exists, just not wikipedia.
 * Check the history, it is being used as a blog... I did before I nominated.  KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ...  18:19, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * WP:OSE is a valid argument and states "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." The example provided demonstrates that limited blogging is, in fact, accepted at the highest level.  It is therefore the policy WP:NOTBLOG that needs amendment because policies are not laws: "Written rules do not themselves set accepted practice". Warden (talk) 20:22, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the point is, if you wish to nominate this virtually blank page under "not a blog" then it seems perfectly reasonable to expect you to do the same for what actually exists as a genuine blog. Why not?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So right now it's not, if was renamed "blok" or "glog", would this MFD be required? If so, I'm happy to do that since Rich cannot defend himself in this forum, as well the nominator knows.   The Rambling Man (talk) 18:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * @Rambling Man - It's being used as a blog, so matter what it's name, it still qualifies for deletion.
 * No, it's not at all. It's a blank list of headings.  Just because something existed in the past, it doesn't mean you need to wait for its author to be blocked before pointedly nominating it for deletion when you clearly ignore the fact that other prominent WIkipedians are running blogs.  Please do the right thing, either remove this paradoxically pointed and pointless nomination, or be straight with the community and nominate the other blogs you know about, including that of NYBrad.  Are you suggesting this should be deleted based on what it used to have on it?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

He used it as a blog, he can't use it now because he's blocked. However, if this were me, and I were using a page as a blog, even if it wasn't called a blog, and even if I were blocked , I'd still expect the page to be deleted as policy doesn't allow for it. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 19:39, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so it contains no information whatsoever that would constitute a blog other than the name. However, Newyorkbrad is blogging away using Wikipedia.  I assume you've nominated that for deletion?  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:06, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's doesn't contain information that would constitute a blog right now because Rich Farmbrough is blocked.  However, prior to him being blocked it did contain information that constituted a blog.

NewYorkBrad's page doesn't really look like a blog to me, even though that's it's title, and no I didn't see it until it you mentioned it. I haven't nominated it, because it doesn't appear to have blog like information. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 20:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So you would nominate a page for deletion for what it "used" to contain? And you would ignore an another user's own existing blog page which is most clearly a blog, and is named as such?  What are you trying to do?  This is by far the most bizarre deletion nomination I've ever seen.  You want to delete a page of headings which historically you believe was a blog, but deny that an extant blog by an editor, which the editor himself calls a blog, is a blog?  Logic fail.  Wow.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * If some part of my nomination isn't clear to you, let me know what part isn't clear and I'll gladly explain.  I think I've made it clear that :

a.) The content of this page is definetly a blog. b.) Blogs are not allowed per WP:NOTBLOG. c.) Yes, the page is now empty. d.)' However, it was used, (up till his block ) as a blog. So, it qualifies for deletion. That's why it's here. KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ... 20:52, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * (a) how is the current content a "blog"? (b) taken as read (c) yes it contains nothing that could be construed as a blog (d) historically it may have been used as anything, but now it's blank.  Please respond in answer to the above questions why you think this blank(ish) page is more of a blog than a self-confessed blog from another editor?  Are you suggesting we should delete pages on their "historical" content?  Given that you think that NYBrad's "blog" isn't a blog even though he calls it his blog, I think you're not even sure what blog is.  Certainly it's not a set of headings with no content.  Do you know what a blog is?  You're not making much sense I'm afraid.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:55, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment   (a) The current content is not a blog - due to the fact that the page owner is blocked. Actually the current history is a blog, just hidden, which you happen to see when [ http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rich_Farmbrough/blog&diff=534060617&oldid=534053444 | Koaf made made a quick edit on his page  and you reverted ]    (d) Historically it was used as a blog  - reading the history of the page bears this out.            Do I think we should delete pages on their historical content ?    In some cases,  literally, case by case basis on that.     Do I know what a blog is ?    Certainly I do.    | this is a blog       Personal ramblings, especially unrelated to wiki would be considered a blog.   KoshVorlon . We are all Kosh ...  22:21, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Comment at best a misplaced, misunderstood MFD, at worst a pointed, one-eyed attempt to have a go an a recently blocked editor. Either way, no validity whatsoever in the nomination; nominator needs to re-assess what is and what isn't a blog, particularly when choosing to ignore blogs that exist, written by other editors. Suggest this bogus nomination is closed as soon as practicable. As an aside, someone could ask Rich if he'd be prepared to remove it himself without all this drama, but it seems that the current climate here precludes that, some editors just want more dramaz. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:20, 20 January 2013 (UTC)


 * keep I am having trouble seeing any real blog content even in the history. And what is there seems to be related to Wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep — Maile (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. "Blogs" in userspace are fine (User:Newyorkbrad/Newyorkbradblog) as long as they are Wiki(p|m)edia related. Just because he's blocked doesn't mean we start wiping out his userspace. Legoktm (talk) 00:23, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Close as a disruptive nomination, blanking at worst until the user is past the preceding block. Note in passing that WP:NOT is an extremely blunt policy page, useful only for turning about the most misguided.  The most important criteria for this sort of page is whether the content and purpose is related to Wikipedia.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:33, 21 January 2013 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.