Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Coats of Paint

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 delete. MBisanz talk 03:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two Coats of Paint[edit]

Two Coats of Paint (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
  • This article fails WP:WEB; I checked out all the external links in the page, and they didn't provide in-depth coverage on the blog, most were just mentions of it. Moreover, this article doesn't really talk about the blog itself but the author of the blog. I attempted to find in-depth coverage, but could only find mentions and brief summaries of the blog's content. Killiondude (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't delete the entry. This entry is a test entry. I'm trying to create an "art blog" section in wikipedia, but it's difficult to find non-blog sources to verify blogs' notability. Mainstream media sources, which aren't always blog-friendly, are hard to come by. Kind of a Catch-22. I'll take another stab at it, add some more info about the blog itself, and try to address your concerns. Thanks for the feedback.
    --willivich 16:17, 11 January 2009 User:24.215.230.190
    • I'm not really sure what you meant by "test entry". If this is truly a test page, then it will fall under "speedy deletion" criteria, and it will definitely be deleted. Would you care to clarify what you meant? Killiondude (talk) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy delete per CSD G2 since this is a test page only. In the future, use the sandbox for test pages...or your own user page. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: changing my vote; OK...it's not really a test page, but it's still not notable. -- Gmatsuda (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm not sure what the author meant by 'test page' but this doesn't really look like one to me. It looks like the start of an article on a somewhat-notable blog. The reviews listed may be brief, but I think they rise above the level of trivial, so this seems to be a keep to me. JulesH (talk) 11:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In the criteria for web material, the third bullet point down on the first criteria states, "Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores." So it defines one part of "trivial coverage" as "a brief summary". So multiple sources that only give brief summaries are essentially multiple trivial sources. Just a thought. Killiondude (talk) 17:44, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't mean "test page," but rather the "Two Coats of Paint" page is the first in a series of pages I am creating for art blogs. As a newer user, I'm unfamiliar with the specific meanings for Wiki veterans, and I mistakenly called it a "test page." Willivich (talk) 13:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well--actually I didn't create this one, but I've been helping edit it. Willivich (talk) 13:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I realized you're a new(er) user, and that's why I asked for your clarification. In any case, the page needs to be referenced from reliable sources, that give more than just brief summaries, in order to establish notability. Killiondude (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an excerpt, pasted from the Wikipedia guidelines for reliable sources: "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative IN RELATION TO THE SUBJECT AT HAND. How reliable a source is depends on CONTEXT." To explain the creator's goal in creating the blog, I used a quote from the blog creator herself, which appeared in an essay posted on the blog. It seems to me, when discussing blogs and writing Wikipedia entries for them, you have to be willing to use blog materials as reliable sources, particularly when they are maintained by experienced journalists. It's ironic that Wikipedia dismisses this type of online material as unreliable given that Wikipedia is also an online project maintained primarily by volunteers with no expertise in the subject matter they are discussing. You also have to take into consideration blogs' relationship with mainstream media when gathering reliable sources. As newspapers fold, will Wikipedia continue to consider unemployed journalists, who may begin to maintain blogs, reliable sources?Willivich (talk) 21:01, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:SPS. Wikipedia tries not to use "self published sources" which includes blogs, as references. Killiondude (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails notability, blogs are not regarded as reliable sources either. --HighKing (talk) 18:20, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "blogs are not regarded as reliable sources" Note that all blogs are NOT of equal quality. The best, maintained by professionals, should certainly be considered reliable sources by Wikipedia. Times are changing, and Wikipedia's policies need to reflect the new environment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Willivich (talk • contribs) 02:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hersfold (t/a/c) 07:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Clearly fails WP:WEB. Not notable. -- 128.97.244.65 (talk) 07:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above (those supporting deletion). Sources fail WP:RS. Fails WP:WEB. - 68.183.104.7 (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep I think it would be better to make the subject of the article the writer instead of her blog. There are more sources to back her notability than there are for her blog Two Coats of Paint. The Brooklyn Rail is read by thousands of people online and in print. Either way I think the Culture Pundits info should be removed. It is just an ad network that art bloggers join in order to earn money from ads that the site places for them. So there is really no reason to mention Culture Pundits other than to drive traffic to other blogs in the Culture Pundits network. It comes off looking like a promotion for Culture Pundits. The link to Culture Pundits is not necessary. Artblogs (talk) 14:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - I don't see any notability for this blog. The "references" don't strike me as particularly good, and I couldn't find any to help out the situation. Jlg4104 (talk) 20:27, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • some clean up I removed parts of the article that read like an add. I took out some of the bio info in order to focus more on the blog itself. Artblogs (talk) 16:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:WEB. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 01:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Clearly fails WP:WEB. Not notable. 209.30.16.190 (talk) 17:09, 19 January 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/Two_Coats_of_Paint&oldid=1069625138"