526:
case. If people want to go out and find non-public livejournals, I doubt they'll be inspired by
Knowledge. They'll do it, because they want to do it any way. Not because they want to put some information on Knowledge. Even if they did, deleting this article would't help, they could still put it on the individual person's article. That's why I don't find that aspect of your argument convincing. Taken to its logical conclusion, it produces something absurd. Even if you limit it to just concerns about livejournals, it doesn't work too well. There are many celebs who publicize their livejournals. As such, including them would be appropriate. If there are any that request privacy, again, I say the first burden is on them to just Livejournal's privacy tools. If for some reason that doesn't work, then we can see about it when that does happen, on an individual scale.
460:
So, you check to see if somebody famous has a livejournal. That's just "research" and is no different than say, watching a movie, noting who is in it, and putting that information on
Knowledge. Your concerns about privacy are not something that can be addressed here. If a famous person doesn't want their livejournal known to the public at large, they should consider using LJ's privacy features. Besides, that would be more of an individual problem than an article one. Given that as far as I know, none of the famous people listed in this article have tried to hide their livejournal (in fact, several of them link to it from their official websites), I don't see it as an immediate concern. Can't understand why you even begin to suggest including every Knowledge figure on this list, that would seem to be odd. And I don't know about you, but I could get behind a
346:- Looking at the article, I don't agree that this can be categorised as "listcruft". The article is of a decent size (not too big, not too small), is well annotated elevating it above the normal "just a list" articles so despised on Knowledge, certainly verifiable using the external links, and actually quite interesting. It's also a bit ironic that some Wikipedians are saying "classification as notable is NPOV"... on AfD no less! --
510:
Regarding the "lists of people article": The way I see this is list is it's just completely arbitrary in what the criteria for inclusion is, and it's essentially trivial information. This doesn't touch on the fact that it acts as a directory of famous peoples' LiveJournals too by simply listing their name, profession, and URL. I can't see
496:) and emails ), but if someone puts their livejournal up publically, and it is found out about, deleting it is iffy, though we could do it if requested and they took obvious steps to make it private. To you, this may be like a list of famous people who drive BMWs, but perhaps you might want to look at
147:. There have been multiple people asking if there's any famous Wikipedians. It stands to reason that people have the same interest on other websites. LiveJournal is notable and as long as the individuals discussed can be shown to be notable themselves, I see no reason to delete it. It serves a need. -
487:
Famous people are already searched for, in all sorts of ways and places. If you think
Knowledge is a major factor in that, you might as well be arguing for the deletion of any article on a living person. Yeah, there are things we need to watch out for (like personal phone numbers, addresses (though
477:
their LiveJournals- the problem is that this list would be so short that it would be better off in a main article. In my opinion, having a list like this is pretty much the same as having a list of famous people who drive BMWs, or a list of famous people who like toast. Yeah some people might find it
418:
I believe going out and trying to find out if a figure on
Knowledge has a Livejournal does consist of original research on some level. I don't mean guys like Billy Corrigan; smaller figures, such as minor entertainers or politicians who have a blog, might not want others knowing about them and having
299:
Livejournal is clearly a notable site. Some of its notability comes from the notable people using it, or from the notable events that have come from it. Thus it is useful for
Knowledge to have that information. There's no vandalism that I could see on this page, no content concerns at all really.
525:
Sorry if I'm being unclear, but I trying to point out that you could potentially make the same argument about having biographical information about any living person. You can't make a broad statement that it could be a problem and blindly act on that, you have to make the decision on the individual
459:
You seem to be confusing "original research" with "looking something up" or "reporting a known fact" . They are quite different. The prohibition against original research is against theories and ideas, not so much against facts (though there are facts that might qualify, this isn't one of them).
117:
Listcruft. Some (though by no means all) of those on the list have evidence to support their 'notability', but the real question is why should we have such a list at all? It has no particular value in and of itself, and (since it is not included in the main article) does not serve to assist in
509:
You're making a bit of a stretch there by equating my position on this article to my position on every biography article we have. The only thing I'm concerned about privacy-wise is that it creates the possibility for editors to go out and find LiveJournals that haven't been declared publicly.
616:
Comment -- Upon first reading the debate, I was gonna say Speedy Delete easily, due to POV issues. But, I think the articles name needs to be changed. "List of notable LiveJournal users" implies people who are famous for having LJs. How about "List of notable people who have LiveJournals" or
500:. There's a fair number of lists in there which I would regard as more important than this. At least, until everybody and their brother gets a livejournal account. In which case, this list could indeed be deleted, and replaced with a list of folks without one.
441:
If we decide to begin including every
Knowledge figure on this list, then we will eventually run into problems with verifiability (ie which blogs are real). As the list grows, there will also be a problem within what "belongs" without violating
286:
Knowledge decides everyday whether or not a person is notable enough for an article here. If they have an article here, or COULD have an article here they can be kept on the list. Perhaps a name change, or cleanup is in order, but the list has
446:, which ends up being decidedly non-neutral. As far as I see, this list is just an arbitrary listing of factoids. If the user is notable for their LiveJournal, mention it in the main article. I certainly wouldn't want to see
535:
Now as for the second part, that's much more of an argument. Indeed, I don't think an article of lists of people with websites would be workable. That's too broad a category. Though I think this is a useful category
238:. Remove "notable" from the article name (it's a tautology) and prune it down to just those people with Knowledge articles of their own. (In answer to Grutness, the existence of a Knowledge article on someone is
427:
for their
Livejournal, I see absolutely no purpose in listing its existence. Given that there really aren't that many people who are famous solely for LiveJournal, I think they could be included in the main
162:. Anything containing the word "notable" in the title automatically falls foul of POV issues. Who decides these are notable? As such, this is unmaintainable in any realistic or encyclopaedic form.
181:
The inclusion of the word notable in the title is probably an attempt to avoid the spam that would occur in a list called "List of LiveJournal users". It's nothing a renaming couldn't fix. -
382:
want to know this information, then I'm sure someone could easily do it on
Livejournal.com. This isn't the place to find out if your favourite celeb or online hero has a Livejournal. --
258:. Yeah let's make a list of people just for the fun of it and then throw in a criterion like notable user of LiveJournal. What could possibly go wrong? <--- insert sarcasm ---: -->
358:
per Mr. Manticore and Canley. For the record, I think LiveJournal is a waste of everyone's time, but that doesn't stop me from recognizing its notability and the list's usefulness.
88:
83:
92:
75:
545:
198:: would it be better renamed as "List of LiveJournal users with Knowledge articles"? That precondition means that all persons on the page would have to pass
213:
I would prefer to stay away from self-reference Just remove the notable from the title. People need to be notable to be included on a list by definition. -
391:
Please tell me how finding that somebody has a
Livejournal account is original research. Then tell me what neutrality principles are being violated.
537:
590:
I agree with Mr. Manticore and Canley, such a list can have added value and be well maintained, when limited to people who already have articles.--
473:
My concern is that it will eventually lead to sleuthing to find LiveJournals. Personally, I wouldn't mind having a list of people who are famous
713:
697:
685:
673:
649:
621:
611:
599:
582:
552:
530:
518:
504:
482:
468:
454:
413:
395:
386:
362:
350:
334:
318:
304:
300:
At the worst, rename it to something other than notable LJ users, even though I think that's unnecessary to change, I won't object.
291:
278:
262:
246:
220:
206:
188:
174:
154:
139:
122:
71:
63:
57:
17:
540:. Now Livejournal is a website, but it's a subset that is reasonably particular. Currently. For example, if you look at the
79:
461:
595:
681:
Is this less notable than the considerable number of lists of people associated with a particular town or university?
666:
634:
662:
630:
511:
728:
36:
727:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
641:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
411:
332:
274:
be interesting. Though I don't think that that is a good reason for it to be of any use in an encyclopedia.
218:
186:
152:
549:
527:
501:
465:
447:
392:
301:
608:
316:
118:
asserting the 'notability' of LiveJournal itself (not that it is needed for the latter purpose anyway)
313:
646:
52:
694:
493:
407:
328:
214:
182:
168:
148:
359:
235:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
275:
670:
579:
541:
497:
489:
638:
375:
49:
710:
706:
682:
443:
420:
259:
243:
199:
163:
132:
371:
288:
119:
544:, of similar content. Take a good honest look at it, and all the sublists. Like
109:
669:
would bother me if there were enough of either to make an article appropriate.
618:
591:
515:
479:
451:
383:
347:
231:
203:
255:
136:
617:
something similiar. The latter is more descriptive of what the article is.
578:, because I think I'm notable enough to be included on that list. =^_^= --
135:. What's next, "List of bands with a MySpace"? Let's not even go there.
423:, which is an official policy, into account, then unless the user is
538:
Category:Celebrities who personally authored their official sites
721:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
661:
into main LiveJournal article. And neither the existence of a
406:
Finding out if someone is notable is not original research. -
133:
Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information
105:
101:
97:
548:. Perhaps one day that'll change, but not so far.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
731:). No further edits should be made to this page.
546:List of celebrity guest stars on Sesame Street
8:
230:Appears to have been created as a fork from
478:interesting, but it's just so trivial. --
419:them linked from this article. If we take
312:we don't need this article. At all...--
421:WP:BLP#Presumption_in_favor_of_privacy
270:: I want to keep it mainly becuase it
462:List of Famous people who use Myspace
7:
378:; it doesn't belong here. If people
488:there are exceptions to this, like
370:. This list basically consists of
202:and therefore satisfy notability.
24:
72:List of notable LiveJournal users
64:List of notable LiveJournal users
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
629:I don't want to end up seeing
1:
714:17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
698:02:44, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
686:06:48, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
674:10:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
667:List of Famous Facebook Users
650:23:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
635:List of Famous Facebook Users
622:05:22, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
612:03:49, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
600:03:33, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
583:23:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
553:04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
531:04:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
519:22:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
505:15:43, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
483:06:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
469:06:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
455:05:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
414:22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
396:21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
387:18:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
363:16:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
351:16:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
335:22:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
319:15:49, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
305:15:46, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
292:15:42, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
279:15:19, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
263:13:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
247:13:18, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
221:22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
207:13:15, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
189:22:35, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
175:13:03, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
155:12:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
140:12:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
123:12:20, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
58:03:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
663:List of Famous MySpace users
631:List of Famous MySpace users
512:List of people with websites
748:
242:evidence of notability.)
724:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
514:being any different. --
607:per FrozenPurpleCube.
327:Care to explain why?-
464:or some such list.
448:List of MySpace users
374:and is inherently
609:Danny Lilithborne
494:Bill Gate's House
372:original research
171:
739:
726:
644:
550:FrozenPurpleCube
528:FrozenPurpleCube
502:FrozenPurpleCube
466:FrozenPurpleCube
393:FrozenPurpleCube
302:FrozenPurpleCube
169:
113:
95:
55:
34:
747:
746:
742:
741:
740:
738:
737:
736:
735:
729:deletion review
722:
642:
598:
542:lists of people
498:lists of people
490:Neverland Ranch
86:
70:
67:
53:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
745:
743:
734:
733:
717:
716:
700:
688:
676:
652:
624:
614:
602:
594:
585:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
533:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
401:
400:
399:
398:
365:
353:
340:
339:
338:
337:
322:
321:
307:
294:
281:
265:
249:
224:
223:
210:
209:
192:
191:
178:
177:
157:
142:
115:
114:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
744:
732:
730:
725:
719:
718:
715:
712:
708:
704:
701:
699:
696:
695:Yankee Rajput
692:
689:
687:
684:
680:
677:
675:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
653:
651:
648:
645:
640:
636:
632:
628:
625:
623:
620:
615:
613:
610:
606:
603:
601:
597:
593:
589:
586:
584:
581:
577:
574:
573:
554:
551:
547:
543:
539:
534:
532:
529:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
517:
513:
508:
507:
506:
503:
499:
495:
491:
486:
485:
484:
481:
476:
472:
471:
470:
467:
463:
458:
457:
456:
453:
449:
445:
440:
439:
438:
437:
436:
435:
426:
422:
417:
416:
415:
412:
409:
405:
404:
403:
402:
397:
394:
390:
389:
388:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
366:
364:
361:
357:
354:
352:
349:
345:
342:
341:
336:
333:
330:
326:
325:
324:
323:
320:
317:
315:
311:
308:
306:
303:
298:
295:
293:
290:
285:
282:
280:
277:
273:
269:
266:
264:
261:
257:
253:
250:
248:
245:
241:
237:
233:
229:
226:
225:
222:
219:
216:
212:
211:
208:
205:
201:
197:
194:
193:
190:
187:
184:
180:
179:
176:
173:
172:
165:
161:
158:
156:
153:
150:
146:
143:
141:
138:
134:
130:
127:
126:
125:
124:
121:
111:
107:
103:
99:
94:
90:
85:
81:
77:
73:
69:
68:
65:
62:
60:
59:
56:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
723:
720:
702:
690:
678:
658:
654:
626:
604:
587:
575:
474:
424:
379:
367:
360:Chubbles1212
355:
343:
309:
296:
283:
271:
267:
254:per nom and
251:
239:
227:
195:
167:
159:
144:
128:
116:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
693:Too vague.
376:non-neutral
297:Strong Keep
240:prima facie
232:Livejournal
671:Davidkevin
659:Merge back
580:Dennisthe2
236:WP:SUMMARY
679:Weak keep
314:SonicChao
268:Weak keep
228:Weak keep
711:WMMartin
707:Grutness
683:GabrielF
428:article.
287:value.--
260:MartinDK
244:Demiurge
196:Question
164:Grutness
289:Crossmr
276:Shamess
120:Cynical
89:protect
84:history
703:Delete
691:Delete
627:Delete
619:JPG-GR
592:danntm
576:Delete
516:Wafulz
480:Wafulz
452:Wafulz
444:WP:BLP
425:famous
384:Wafulz
380:really
368:Delete
348:Canley
310:Delete
252:Delete
234:under
204:Vizjim
200:WP:BIO
160:Delete
129:Delete
93:delete
639:Rever
256:MER-C
137:MER-C
110:views
102:watch
98:links
54:desat
16:<
705:per
655:Keep
605:Keep
588:Keep
492:and
450:. --
356:Keep
344:Keep
284:Keep
170:wha?
145:Keep
106:logs
80:talk
76:edit
50:Core
48:. --
665:or
657:or
647:ndG
633:or
475:for
408:Mgm
329:Mgm
272:can
215:Mgm
183:Mgm
166:...
149:Mgm
709:.
637:.
131:-
108:|
104:|
100:|
96:|
91:|
87:|
82:|
78:|
643:e
596:C
410:|
331:|
217:|
185:|
151:|
112:)
74:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.