Talk:Fatblogging

Article Checklist for "Fatblogging"

Workgroup category or categories	Health Sciences Workgroup, Media Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Stub: no more than a few sentences
Underlinked article?	Yes
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	--Eric M Gearhart 14:07, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

Thanks, Beano! But can one really call a "movement" anything that started in 2007? --Larry Sanger 11:24, 2 April 2007 (CDT)

I'm afraid that I'd want to delete this; it looks more like an advert than an encyclopædia article. --Peter J. King  Talk  09:51, 4 April 2007 (CDT)

You're welcome Larry; as for whether it is a movement, it's called such for a lack of a better term (and what the searches describe it as). Maybe only history books of the future can truly term anything a movement.

Peter, I agree it looks very much like a personal ad/original research, but this was a requested article and as of now there is just not enough information to make it convincingly encyclopædic. Then there's also the issue of it being very short. This can be discussed, and ultimately what's needed can be done. --Beano Lee (Talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007

Can requests for articles not be turned down if, as in this case, the subject is inappropriate? --Peter J. King  Talk  12:15, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

That can be done, but what measures does one take to gauge whether an article request is appropriate or not? Being the first article on the request list to be completed, this raises some interesting issues. Never knew how Wikipedians solve this issue back then, so some enlightenment would be helpful.

My idea for this current article is that the one who requested and the one who vouches for a delete simply sort it out. Second opinions added in too, perhaps. As the author of this article, I say its fate shall be decided by that. --Beano Lee 18:02, 8 April 2007

Peter, you merely assume that the subject is inappropriate. If you think so, argue for it. Maybe a new principle, in addition to (or replacing) Maintainability, will fall out of your explanation. It's obviously not a "advert": who's selling anything? I requested the article because I saw the term and didn't know what it meant. It has some currency and describes a real, if recent, phenomenon.

The article isn't "original research" for the simple reason that others have written about it and we are reporting what they've written. --Larry Sanger 13:59, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Sorry, I must admit that it didn't occur to me that there'd be much disagreement, which is why I didn't offer an argument. It's a new phenomenon of no stated or sourced significance or popularity. The nature of the Internet is such that anybody can publicise a new x-blogging idea, a few people will take it up, the odd (probably local) newspaper might mention it on a slow news day, and then it will disappear; it surely belongs in a newspaper supplement, or a magazine, but not in an encyclopædia? Don't we need to have some standard of significance? I mean, the article itself doesn't even claim significance for its subject. Terms like this require longer existence and more mentions before they're even included in dictionaries...

An advert, of course, doesn't have to be commercial; charities, political parties, campaigning groups, local gardening clubs, lonely people looking for love or sex — they all advertise. I realise that it isn't an advert — I'm sorry if I sounded as though I was accusing someone of using Citizendium for underhand purposes. I meant only that, lacking any obvious (or even less than obvious) encyclopædic value, it looked more like an advert.

Do we have a significance criterion of some kind? I'm showing my ignorance here, of course — I've been too busy writing and tinkering to RTFM. --Peter J. King  Talk  17:23, 8 April 2007 (CDT)