Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Home and family blog

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 no consensus. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home and family blog

[edit]
Home and family blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Non notable web concept with no third party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 16x9 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Note: Article's name changed to "List of bloggers and blogs about home and family" by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

  2. Note: Article's name changed to "List of parenting bloggers" by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

  3. Note: Article's name changed back to original title, "Home and family blog," by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your candor (essentially grounding your rationale via WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than premises of the Wikiproject on bloggers and blogging) but I'm only going to use existing WP entries in the list. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*::Delete. No, I think it's more WP:CRYSTAL. SimonTrew (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (changed mind, see below)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."---WP:CRYSTALYou've lost me. Never mind, just pointing to a guideline doesn't count as a vote anyway. Thanks though. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a voting process, anyway. Anyway, I had imagined you might say something like that, but read further "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and "3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.". The article admittedly does not literally "present" that, but by saying "I hope to turn the current stubby definition into a quite comprehensive list", and "I'm only going to (my italics) use existing WP entries in the list", if that's not future history or extrapolation I don't know what is. I'm an inclusionist, but I think there should be a minimum of momentum before an article can stand on its own feet. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for an almanac to list coconut milk per capita in Indonesia a Google search's gotta come up with a lot of hits for the phrase or else it's in vio of WP:NEOLOGISM? (I feel like John McEnro. " - C-A-N - Y-O-U - B-E - S-E-R-I-O-U-S - ! ".....lol) ↜Just me, here, now … 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, referee, I'll take the loss of a point. Ahem. Anyway, here's the actual guideline being ostensibly referred to, for those interested:

[...T]here will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.---WP:NEOLOGISM

{Whispers} (...BTW, if you're following along here: This doesn't mean ya {raises voice} GOOGLE SEARCH! {speaks normally} the, somewhat long or awkward title.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean rename? Or do you mean that if you yourself have never heard of, say, a comprehensive listing of the notable Venezuelan bloggers that therefore such a list would be of no import to those afficianados of blogging culture who are actually interested in this branch of human knowldedge? ↜Just me, here, now … 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to merge with List of blogs. Article as it stands is a list of bloggers, and was renamed (not by me) to reflect this. ~EdGl ★ 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wrt my agenda, 'tis this: a claim, for example, that Erma Bombeck ain't worthy of encylopedic mention cause of what she was writing about is plain highbrow nonsense. As for some mysterious, other "agenda"...let's see: I don't know any housewife bloggers nor am I interested commercially in exploiting the well-known phenomena of some of them making their rent money through their witty blogging (which I don't read because I'm not that "domestic"); nor do I know about or care about women entrepreneurs who are selling blogging kits or whatever exists; and I don't even know where Martha Stewart lives in Connecticut. (I stay on US 95 as I drive up and might get off in New Haven.) But I'm starting to mindlessly "share" about myself now. In any case, what do you mean by my agenda, actually?
  2. Wrt alleged "OR":

    In the midst of talking to other moms, these bloggers have discovered big business was listening. Companies like Graco and Johnson & Johnson are reaching out to mom bloggers, hoping to get a mention. Women value the opinion of other women, and if a blogger writes that she loves the little girls' orange butterfly sandals from the x-y-z shoe store, you can be certain a few other moms will head directly to x-y-z to buy them!---NBC NEWS

    In other words, the article had been up for but a few seconds before being nominated and you're worrying about sources? (Ya need a source for the sun being in the sky too? {wink} "OR" doesn't preclude editors and AfD reviewers just abiding by plain common sense btw....) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well yes you would need a source *wink. Wikipedia is not about truth or common sense but what is verifiable no original research information. If it was never published the sun was in the sky then wikipedia couldn't say it. 16x9 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To me the problem is potentially improper synthesis. We need reliable sources that state that the topic of these blogs is "home and family". If such a categorisation exists and the blogs are notable, then the article is fine. I think some of the objections above verge on IDONTLIKEIT. Fences and windows (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Wouldn't a better list be List of parenting websites? This would be non-original research, and fine if it included notable websites and blogs. Fences and windows (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I gather the article title was changed on request, so I think that should be discounted as far as AfD goes. I've looked at the five people listed on the article and personally I think at least four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes. (I've marked two with like-resume tag; one in the talk page so as not to distract in this AfD, one in the page itself as it already had other tags). Why not just make a subcategory and put those articles into it? That's one of the things they're for, surely. SimonTrew (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon said, ",four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes"....
True. Anyway...OK folks, I shouldn't have to lecture you oldtimers on proceduere, but here goes. Such considerations are to be hashed out at article talkpage space. AfD's only hash out whether proposed article's topic is too obscure, etc. In fact, per how AfD's are to be done, just jumping to one a few seconds after an article is bugun to be constructed is clearly not cool; {sighs} in fact (...to further fill up AfD space instead of work on the article; O well....) what follows are the consecutive steps supposed to be taken BEFORE resorting to an AfD, per the guidelines (and note that I've interspersed my own comment after consecutive step of the guideline):
2 Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
This means that an AfD popped on an article that's being construced to be a list needs to take this fact into account.
3 If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as [notability], [hoax], [original research], [unencyclopedic] or [advert]; this ensures that everyone viewing the article is aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
This means, in cases where an article conceivably has potential of being on a non-obscure topic, contributors are to expend energy trying to bring an article to such a state rather than rush prematurely to an AfD.
4 Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
OK, this AfD's nominator did suggested such remedies in the AfD -- not exactly the right place to start, since it again has the cart before the horse, but I have no objection to these approaches at least being considered so will call this item sort of a wash.
5 Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
See comment above.
6 Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation.
7 Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Not applicable.
8 Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability, reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not. Related guidelines include WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, and, for list articles, WP:CLN.
...And hash issue out on talkpage first?
9 When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
Did not do.
10 Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Correct. Conclusion?...
I said "personally I think at least four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes." That is not quite the same thing — in fact is the opposite thing — of saying that's a reason for deletion. SimonTrew (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you keep argument is because you assume bad faith with the nomination and call out policy guidelines when there are equally/more important guidelines on article creation. The original article you created was at best a protologisms definition what was already covered in the main Blog article. Then when that was no going well a change to this list article which contents could be or are covered in List of blogs. There are still no references for the article. 16x9 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name "Home and family blog" is, as far as we can tell, an invention of the article creator. In the absence of reliable sources for this categorisation of blog and in the absence of reliable sources stating that the blogs and bloggers listed are notable for the topic of "home and family", this needs deleting. Fences and windows (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order. Could someone explain the wiki-mechanism Wrt the general inevitability in AfDs that by the time mainspace contributors assemble citations and whatnot (eg as here, for var. blogs' being in the domestic genre) its AfD will have amassed a slew of ![not-really-]votes? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Article's name changed to "List of bloggers and blogs about home and family" by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

• Note: Article's name changed to "List of parenting bloggers" by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I was vaguely aware there was an "under construction" tag that you can put on articles, well, under construction. The reason I didn't look it up, to be honest, was 'cause I imagined such a topic as the one I was writing on was a slam dunk to be notable. (What, with the percentage of the population that are moms and would be interested in reading something written by other moms.... And, what, with the fact that the Intenet's caused this phenomenon to happen.... And, what, with the tools of google search and the reading of news reports and whatnot to document the notability of such a fact.... )

I'm not complaining mind you. I have zero vested interest in writing about this subject. I don't read such blogs nor know anyone who writes them. (My own style of exposition is somewhat close to what I imagine their chattiness is, though.) And I'm not that "domestic," myself, either.

Anyway, I did customize a tag regarding "systemic bias" (sort of) that I posted on the article. Here's the rub (for real!): Wikipedians are predominantly men. And -- every pornstar in the adult film biz has a Wikipedia page. Coincidence? I don't mind notable pop culture topics being covered but do mind myopia about things in popular culture that should receive encyclopedic coverage in WP but haven't yet. It's like if you interrupted somebody reading The Economist and asked them which magazine is more popular, The Economist or Good Housekeeping, and the person didn't know. You'd think, "Hmm. You'd think an Economist reader would be more informed!"

So, with that long introduction, let me try a statistic to make the case for the notability for blogs about domesticity. Let's check the Alexa rankings of two blogs (at which, note, the ranking of #1 is at the top.) I checked Dooce (which blog I've never really read in my life, but is in my mommy blogger list). It's ranked at # 29,919 of all blogs. Then I checked the ranking for Andrew Sullivan (which I myself click over to several times a week!) It's ranked much much farther down the popularity list than Dooce at # 5,339,802. Yet, despite his fewer readers, I've got the feeling Wikipedia folks have heard of Sullivan and not Dooce (which until recently would have also been the case with me, after all).

What genre is Sullivan? We need a source for that, but before I get one I'll just clue you in. His is a polical blog. His site's tagline? "Of no party or clique."

But what is Dooce's tagline? "Talking a lot about poop, boobs, her dog, and her daughter." And as for that "future" time when some witty woman might be able to sit at home composing a witty, high-traffic blog on the Internet that's about sitting at home, blah blah...well, that's today in the here and now (with no WP:crystalballing required). And if you give me a chance I'll get references (Google hits for "mom" plus "blog"? news cites?) that the genre is notable. (The secondary motto on Sullivan's site? This quote from George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.")

footnote - Note that Andrew Sullivan is on the list that's posted on Wikipedia at Political blog#Notable American political blogs and bloggers...yet then note Sullivan's actual share of the blog reading audience, per the above Alexa ranking of his extremely popular political blog, in comparison with Ms. Dooce's, of another blogging genre. ↜Just me, here, now … 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Justmeherenow makes a couple of valid points here. First the article was not given any time to grow, and it is not fair for editors (myself included) to excuse that on the grounds that there were no stubs, categories, links, whatever: that's just WP:BURO. It was quite plain from the start that the article was in infancy and it was far to early to go to AfD.
I think notability is an issue but given a short time can be achieved, and we should help justmenow in navigating around Wikipedia's arcane rules not just wrap a "police do not enter" tape around the article. I've refrained from editing it even for minor typos etc until this AfD expires. I emphasise a short time, perhaps two weeks.
Old hands please remember: Wikipedia is not an easy place to navigate if you don't know exactly what to look for. Wikilinks are great, but take (e.g. yesterday) that my stub for a car company comes under {{motorvehicle-company-stub}} but the car it makes under {{vehicle-stub}} (not motorvehicle-stub or vehicle-model-stub or whatever, which would seem equally plausible) and this is hard to find: you can't search for it. Similarly, I have no idea what !vote is supposed to mean, is it a template, a policy, some slang, what? Wikipedia search doesn't help at all.
I think justmenow's comments above have a smack of sexism to them unwarranted in an AfD (or indeed elsewhere on WP), but that is about the AfD itself and not about the article, and so irrelevant as far as the article itself is concerned.
I have replied more fully to justmenow's at the user's talk page, hopefully giving some constructive criticism and suggestions.
Keep. SimonTrew (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Okay lets really look at what has happened. I tagged the article for afd when it was called Home and family blog. under the premise that this is a non notable topic with no third party reliable sources and that wikipedia is not a dictionary. There were already categories and links to the page (I find it from a link at Blog. If there were a CSD for concepts it would have been easily speedy deleted for no claim of notability. After being brought here the article name has been changed two times trying to find a way to stay. Even in its current form it is un-sourced original research. Any of the content in this list, if it is not already, could be merged to List of blogs. Now, the author in this case as over 12,000 edits on en.wiki which would be plenty to understand the "rules". 16x9 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom, 16x9, can't utter my name? Well, let's do remain grounded in WP's guidelines, then. Chapter and verse!: As they're extremely intelligently written, with many the caveat to guard against their being wielded counter to their true meaning, in detriment to Wikipedia's ultimate goals. (Who does this kind of wielding?, someone asks. Pedants. And, What is pedantry? Editorial polemics.)
    Which assertion I'd be required to souce from theory of knowledge: no problem! But, sir or ma'am, why such a stark line as all that, drawn in the sand? against Those Others, the Usurpers (Yours Truly) and in defense of We Wikipedians, The Keepers of The True Flame (our friendly Nom here)? Why not acknowlege each others' good faith (see the guidelines). And that each pole of our dialectic has meaning and purpose. A useful dynamic, in pursuit of our mutual goal. That is, let's talk ideas, not personalities. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) ↜Just me, here, now … 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Peacock): (Btw out of the random stubs, some of which are now articles, I've "created" (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, and xix), I've never used an "under construction" tag once. ((I will from now on, though!))) ↜Just me, here, now … 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's argument that the article's content could be merged somewhere is simply not an argument for deletion' but rather that this content is notable, no? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Note: I changed the article back to its original title, "Home and family blog," so -- no more complaints! ↜Just me, here, now … 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note: Per the stipulations laid down at WP:CANVASSING, I've "appropriately canvassed" all participants of the discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs" (including the user who was its closing administrator), thereby abiding by its strictures that such notifications be limited to a small number of neutrally selected editors. (I pinged 19; 20 altogether, since I also pinged User:Wikidemon, a WPdian who I know from experience calls em like s/he sees em, independently and without partiality.) ↜Just me, here, now … 07:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You still need to demonstrate the notable existence of this category of blog, i.e. "Home and family", and that the blogs you want to list belong to this category. Please provide some sources. Also, this AfD is thoroughly confused, especially by multiple changes in title. Fences and windows (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The precise title is secondary. Home and family blog, parenting blog, mom blog, dad blog, etc are possibilities, and intelligently subsuming relevant referenced information under a topic / title is not considered OR. Wikipedia would be unwritable without such exercises of editorial judgment. Reliable sources are definitely not necessary to support that a notable obvious mom blog is a h & f blog, if that is the title we decide on. Searches like this 311 gnews hits for parenting blog and refs in the article indicate this is a notable category of blogs, with notable members. Their high popularity is noteworthy, and we should consciously counter unintentional systematic bias against such topics.John Z (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and define inclusion criteria. What are the inclusion criteria? We can't just have editors deciding by themselves that a blog or website is about "Home and family", that's a recipe for POV-driven edit warring. For instances, Justmeherenow includes Mom's Cancer, but that's about a webcomic, not a blog, and it is about his mother dying of cancer, not "Home and family" as such. I use this as an illustration that even the article creator doesn't have a clear idea of what should be included. Do blogs about home improvements count as "Home and family"? Who knows.
The guide WP:NEO says this: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."
I'll give you a better title: Websites about family life and homemaking. That includes parenting, writing about your parents, moaning about your siblings, spouse or partner, and being a housewife or househusband, in a neat catch-all. Fences and windows (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but either the primary author is deliberately trying to avoid being deleted by changing the title, or, assuming good faith, has been sent from pillar to post by other editors continually requesting a change of title. So I agree (an I think primary author would agree) title is not perfect, but that has nothing to do with whether the article should be deleted: that's a move request. SimonTrew (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think, per WP:NEOLOGISM#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms," that this title just suggested by User:Fences and windows might be a better/more precise than "home and family." How does any/everybody else feel? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Blog#Types. Actually it's not clear to me if the article name should be kept around as a redirect, as there seems to be no evidence that this is a notable term, or that someone would try searching for that article. But the content seems fine, just better placed as part of another article. Mdwh (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is sufficient evidence to show this as a type of blog. The article will obviously need careful watching. There should also be a category. DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content-wise but continue to discuss a possible merge or move. With regards to neologisms, the sources do not quantify the term "home and family blog". However, I definitely encourage, as an alternative, discussing a move to another term that is backed by verifiable sources; looking at them, I see "Moms blog" and "Mommy blog". Perhaps consensus can steer towards one of those two terms, which may provide some justification for its own article if not a subsection under Blog#Types (I would be more inclined towards the former in this specific case). MuZemike 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mom blog would be OK. (However note that the way the Open Directory Project categorizes its hits wrt mommy blogs as, somewhat similarly, Home:Family:Mothers:Parenting:Weblogs.) ↜Just me, here, now … 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems at least somewhat notable as a type of blog, with several significant examples. A merge is a possibility, as is a rename (Parenting blog, perhaps?), but I don't see the grounds for deletion here - there are plenty of references to reliable sources provided. Robofish (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

Unfortunately, the article only cites sources that use the term, and therefore fails to meet Wikipedia's neologism standard presented above. "Home and family blog" does not qualify for an article at this time. The Transhumanist 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even really make sense and talks about "mom blogs", not "home and family blogs". Like I said, it's a neologism at best and more likely the foundation for an attempt to spam www.homeandfamilyblog.com. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief, Drawn Some, that an established WPdian such as myself would embarked on any such devious plan I frankly find sort of------- {tries to think of an inoffensive way to say weird} ↜Just me, here, now … 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Conspiracy-theories loving"! {wonders to self, How's that?) ↜Just me, here, now … 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about the phrase "home and family blogs", but the topic, about which several alternatives exist. So as stated above, the precise title is secondary for AfD purposes, and the neologism style guideline is not too relevant. Indeed, it states : Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms that "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." "Home and family blog" here is more naturally interpreted as "a descriptive phrase in plain English" rather than a neologism.John Z (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "Websites about family life and homemaking", which I suggested, isn't a neologism. Wikipedia editors are far too fond of the "neologism" argument for deletion. We should focus on whether reliable sources cover the area, not if the specific phrase in the article title is used. That said, the phrase "Parenting blog" is a common one, used in many hits on Google News, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 'Avoid neologisms' directs us to, well, avoid neologisms, but it doesn't mean we should delete an article just because it has a neologistic title. I would argue that this isn't an article about a neologism; that would be something like Home and family blog (phrase), and be subject to those guidelines. This is an article about a notable phenomenon; the current name may not be appropriate (I agree it isn't) but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, rather it should be renamed to a better title. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've got my edit through, I see that the two previous edits already basically said the same thing... well, at least the point is now clear! :) Robofish (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: The article appears to be a synthesis to form a category and potentially a neologism (or at least something resembling a neologism), and should be deleted. In the alternative, it should be merged into List of blogs. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can "home and family blog" be a neologism? The only vaguely new word there is "blog", the rest I think are quite old. If I write an article on "German and Swedish car blogs", notable or not, it would not be a neoligism. The point here it seems to me comes down not to neology but to notability: either it should be simply a category, or it should be an article if it adds information above what a category would, or it should be deleted. Lack of sources to my mind does not make it deletable. It would be lovely to have them, but I am sure we can all point at several articles that have no sources yet are GA. SimonTrew (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are kidding, right? What is verifiable is third party sources is what is written on wikipedia. Nothing has been shown that phrase "home and family blog" has existed or is notable thus neologism. The very few reliable sources found could go toward a sentence or two mention at Blog#Types. There is no need to split this topic into its own article. 16x9 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no one is claiming that the phrase "Home and family blog" is a term, rather, this is an article about a particular topic, and this is just the name we give for that (which is now "List of parenting blogs", btw). Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles here are about concepts, not just words or phrases. The neologism issue only applies if we are trying to claim a phrase exists, or are making on up. In particular, see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms - the only issue here is with naming, i.e., we should avoid trying to make up a neologism. However, this is absolutely no justification for deleting the article content, and the guideline supports this. Your reasoning is like saying that the phrase "List of auto-antonyms in English" is a neologism, or "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality‎". But clearly these aren't trying to coin phrases, rather, they are descriptions for the article.
If there is concern that the article title sounds like a neologism, then I would propose a rename to List of blogs about parenting or Blogs about home and family - this is not however an argument for deleting the article. Mdwh (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern that this may be pushing the edge of a neologism as a list/article topic is that the list makes an attempt to define what a parenting/home & family blog is in the very first sentence, even if that wasn't the author's explicit intention. The title of the article is not the only offender, so a mere title change is insufficient. Jo7hs2 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to SimonTrew: A neologism can be a new word, usage of a word, expression, or phrase, not just simply a new word. That said, the fact that this could be a neologism is not as important as the appearance that the author(s) were creating a new subject (I said category, which was inaccurate, I meant a category/type of blog(s)) via synthesis, which is generally at odds with WP standards. This isn't a research publication, it is an encyclopedia, and this article requires a leap of OR to even exist, since the category of blogs appears to have been noted nowhere else. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment:It was asked above what the inclusion criteria should be for material like this. the answer, is they can be whatever we want them to be. We make the rules, and we can make whatever exceptions are indicated. It's not as if we were working on someone else's project. DGG (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'comment'. Well put DGG. Nuff said.
To jo7hs2: I had assumed you meant a Category in the Wikipeda sense, but simply trying to arrange existing content, whichever mechanism is used, to me is not OR even if I might think it a bad arrangement. I admit here the problem partly is the content did not exist before. I must admit I've been quite fearful of regategorising stuff myself expecting kinda talk about "Get out of my category!" but have not had any as yet; if anything editors have been very helpful to me suggesting (or just moving to) more specific subcategories or stubs.
To Mdwh: I realise a neologism can be more than one word (though Gk. logos means "word", not "some vague noun-cloud I'm thinking of"). I see we have good old WP:DICDEF surfacing again; and a complaint that the first sentence of the lead defines the term. So what? It's quite common for the first line of the lead to define the term, it would be a bit perverse if we had to tiptoe around what the subect actually was before discussing it encyclopaedically. For most articles that doesn't mean we need etymology or pronunciation etc unless relevant in the article (there's Wiktionary for that) but a one-line definition of what something is actually about seems eminently sensible, in fact bleeding obvious. SimonTrew (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I asked about inclusion criteria. I know that no external body decides it for us, but if articles lack clear topics they bloat with irrelevancies and trivia. If the only person to whom the purpose of an article is clear is the article creator, we're setting ourselves up for trouble down the line. Agreeing what an article should actually be about seems pretty important. Fences and windows (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
put that way, my response is that for subjects such as this, we need t o decide ad hoc and feel our way until we have enough experience to develop a consensus. UIn general, for hew internet related things we should be more inclusive, because of 3 considerations: the unconventional general nature of the sources, the greast suitability of us in particualr to lead the way here, and that we are acknowledged as a leader here, rather than having other encyclopedias to imitate., This is our central realm. DGG (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2009 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Home_and_family_blog&oldid=1248852415"