| Revision as of 06:10, 26 December 2005 editCptchipjew (talk | contribs)125 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:19, 26 December 2005 edit undoTimecop (talk | contribs)1,246 editsm →[]Next edit → | ||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
| *'''Delete''' and never recreate -- ] 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' and never recreate -- ] 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep''' per JJay. Notable for first blog (even if individual blogs aren't notable). ] 03:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''Keep''' per JJay. Notable for first blog (even if individual blogs aren't notable). ] 03:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :But this isn't a first blog. Nobody heard of this dude or his blog until the article appeared a week ago and someone started spamming half of it into ]. | |||
| *'''Delete'''. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic. The article author is also violating 3RR trying to paste that whole thing into ]. ] 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | *'''Delete'''. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic. The article author is also violating 3RR trying to paste that whole thing into ]. ] 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :* It more or less all checks out based on the references I dug up. -- ] 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | :* It more or less all checks out based on the references I dug up. -- ] 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:19, 26 December 2005
Vigdor Schreibman
Who? What? 9000 google hits, mostly related to some webdesign mailing lists. Non-notable/vanity. Timecop 00:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong keep. This guy was a pathbreaker well before Drudge and is a figure in the internet revolution. Suggest the nom read the NY Times profile from 1996. Vanity? Sounds more like jealousy to me. -- JJay 02:36, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Comment - If it's jealousy on Timecop's part, why is someone breaking 3RR to plop this tripe into the Blog article? Reeks of vanity to me. Thesquire 04:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- I have no idea what motivates stupid behaviour or vanity. What matters is the issue at hand- the article raises a relevant historical question, particularly considering that this is an internet encyclopedia. The references I added to the article confirm that Schreibman started an Internet news service and was denied press credentials in Washington. His case may be one of the early precursors in the ongoing confrontation between the old and new medias. -- JJay 04:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, 130 unique Google hits. I looked up the NYT article but you have to pay for it, but if this guy were so important, there would be more than one article in all of NYT for the last 20 years. Attacking the nominator is never appropriate. And if this article is kept, it needs a complete rewrite. User:Zoe| 02:49, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Delete and never recreate -- Femmina 03:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep per JJay. Notable for first blog (even if individual blogs aren't notable). Endomion 03:45, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- But this isn't a first blog. Nobody heard of this dude or his blog until the article appeared a week ago and someone started spamming half of it into Blog.
- Delete. Unverifiable, unencyclopedic. The article author is also violating 3RR trying to paste that whole thing into Blog. Flyboy Will 03:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- It more or less all checks out based on the references I dug up. -- JJay 04:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Agreed it is a bad article but the content needs stay. Clean-up recommended. SorryGuy 03:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - This man does sound notable. I had no idea the first blog was written out of the University of Maryland -- my school! --Cyde Weys vote 04:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - Sounds notable enough to me. User:VanillaX
- Strong Delete - Disgusting vanity page. Misplaced Pages does not need spam such as this on it. I urge all voters keep in mind what Misplaced Pages is not. Jmax- 06:09, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
- Strong Delete - Completley non-notable. NPOV and unencyclopedic mess.Cptchipjew 06:10, 26 December 2005 (UTC)