Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diary-X (2nd nomination)

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diary-X[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Wikieditor600 (talk) 01:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have no way of knowing if this is referenced since all of the sources have no links, but a quick google search returned just mentions, which don't pass GNG. Crazy Boy 826 01:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:58, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The listed sources are valid even if they're not online. It's the responsibility of the people voting for deletion to find ways to verify them - see WP:PAPERONLY: "the burden of proof is on the one seeking deletion". I just looked for additional sources, and Diary-x is discussed in several scholarly articles about the importance of online diaries, especially for young women. This includes:
- "Screening Moments, Scrolling Lives: Diary Writing on the Web" (2003) in Biography (journal)
- "‘Hit Sluts’ and ‘Page Pimps’: online diarists and their quest for cyber-union" (2007) in a journal called Life Writing
- "Saving Digital History" (2007) in Library Journal
- "Women's Diaries in an Online Era" (2003), a thesis by a student at Southern Illinois University Carbondale

There's sufficient sourcing for Diary-X having been important at its time, even if the sources are harder to find now than they were in 2003. It's worth doing that work to avoid WP:RECENTISM and systemic bias. Dreamyshade (talk) 14:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:24, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree, this was important at the time. --Sm8900 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.