Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diaper bag

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 KEEP. Orlady (talk) 16:34, 16 March 2008 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

[edit] Diaper bag

Diaper bag (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Prod removed with a note from the creator and while I understand it was a requested article, I don't see any encyclopedic notability for a diaper bag and its contents. The contents are pure OR and vary from one bag to another. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 03:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete. I have seen some strange topics for articles before but for sheer quirkiness this is pretty high up there. Why should it be deleted? Well, for starters there are no references at all. This is hardly surprising, though, since the whole article appears to be original research if not pure conjecture; the repeated use of the word "perhaps" points to the conclusion that even the author might admit that he was just pulling this stuff off the top of his head. (Note: juvenile poop joke witheld for reasons of good taste.) OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Upon looking over my previous comments I note that they might be unduly harsh so I would like to clarify that I agree with Ten Pound Hammer (below) that this article was created in good faith and so am not disparaging the author, just commenting on the Wikiworthiness of this specific article. OlenWhitaker • talk to me or don't • ♣ ♥ ♠ ♦ 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC) 03:58, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Comment I've added a few references I found @ my local GP. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Most certainly created in good faith, but I have my doubts that this article could be done any justice. I just don't see this being expanded beyond basically a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 03:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary - This is a definition of a term (not a joke). Reference support is needed, but the substance is OK for a dictionary def. --Orlady (talk) 03:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Struck out my earlier comment. Article is dramatically improved; it no longer resembles a dictionary entry. --Orlady (talk) 16:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep I actually think there is some potential for expansion here. Diaper bags are widely discussed in books, and there are some interesting facts we could throw in (a Gucci diaper bag?) Zagalejo^^^ 04:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think it's notable enough and there is definitely room for expansion. Littleteddy (roar!) 04:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep The below note is from the original author, me. You may delete it if necessary. I will post it on my discussion page, just in case. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
On a semantic note, I wrote, "An average full bag 'might contain". I don't know if that's weasel wording, but at least it makes the sentence true.
On to notability, people that haven't taken part in infant rearing are often unaware of what the term "diaper bag" means, what a diaper bag is meant to be, and what a diaper is meant to contain. A sum-of-parts analysis would yield that it is a bag for diapers alone and I have seen people making that mistake, fetching a bag of diapers instead, come to dire consequences.
How to care for children does not come naturally; it must be taught. Teaching is what Wikipedia does. I believe many people have tried to look up diaper bags on search engines or Wikipedia before and there was a person desperate enough to explain its need on Wikipedia:Requested articles/Culture and fine arts#Fashion. I don't know if that person posted the original request or not.
I just googled "diaper bag" and found many sites selling them under that name as well as under "baby bag" and "nappy bag". Somehow, we don't have a page for any of those terms. "Baby bag" at least should have a page and maybe the others should link to it. A baby bag is neither a bag a baby can play with, a bag a baby owns, nor a bag full of baby / babies. Now, while you may view the idea of not knowing what a baby bag, diaper bag, or nappy bag is as laughable, please remember that we do have an article for hat.
At King Eddie's (King Edward Memorial Hospital http://www.kemh.health.wa.gov.au/ ), the public hospital for maternity in Perth, Western Australia, there are several posters designed to help new mothers and other carers of infants. They detail how to breastfeed a baby, how to hold it, how to blanket it, how to lay it down, how to respond to it, how to bathe it, how to change its nappy and so forth. Some of these things are public health announcements necessary to prevent cot death (SIDS - Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Perth has some of the highest literacy rates in the world and the world's most vast rural network for a megacity, besides deep ties with Asia, Africa, Europe, the Americas, and the rest of Oceania, so the potential readers are neither idiots nor far from reality.
Babies are very delicate, and people can become carers of infants without passing omniscience tests. This situation is why infant mortality rates are so high in the world. The health and hygiene (mental included) of both the infant and carer are therefore notable topics. Diaper bags have played an important part of infant hygiene for millenia. Giving no information to genuine seekers of it on this topic is hard to believe for me..
As far as OR goes, this is a topic most well-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) know by heart and I think most of them would not see it as OR. It's one of those funny things that still manages to be notable because non-versed infant carers (probably >10% of the world population) don't know any of it.
As far as NPOV goes, I tried to be very balanced in what I put in, favouring neither disposable nor reusable culture, favouring neither breastfeeding nor bottle-feeding, being careful to not specify with "parents" but to generalize with "infant carers", as well as specifically attaching "perhaps" to things that are vital to some people but not to all. I should probably attach it to keys and wallet as well.
I'm not trying to dominate other cultures with my own. I'm trying to help guide carers of infants so that both they and the infants can survive at least until the baby attains the age of 5. This is part of the UN millenium development goals designed to decrease infant mortality and systemic difficulties faced by women. I would like you and anyone else who can to edit the article to improve it, but I disagree with questioning its notability and proposing deletion. :)--Thecurran (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Disagree, it's OR because it's wholly uncited and what one person puts in a bag could be totally different from another. A diaper bag could be explained with a dictionary definition at wiktionary. People aren't going to look in an encyclopedia for what to put in a diaper bag, that's a google/parent website question. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the fact that someone did come to Wikipedia to look it up contradicts "People aren't going to look in an encyclopedia for what to put in a diaper bag". http://www.google.com/parent/ yields a 404, so I don't see where you're going with that. Besides, Google usually ends up linking here anyway. Yahoo has a nice directory over search engine feature though that just gave me a new reference but keep in mind that many people don't understand search engines and directories as well as you do. :)--Thecurran (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, needs sources and rewrite. At present it's excessively how-to. I don't see in principle, as the nomination asserts, how this is unencyclopedic. It's an essential piece of equipment for parenting just as a backpack is for hiking or a go bag for emergency responders. Certainly there are sources in parenting or women's magazines or newspaper lifestyle sections, discussing not just what goes in it but its social and cultural impacts, e.g. the diaper bag grants parents mobility and convenience. --Dhartung | Talk 08:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - WP might not be a "how to guide", but we explain Childbirth, Parenting & Category:Parenting, so why not actually be encyclopedic and encompass an explanation of the tools as well. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 09:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • Comment, and just because WP:OTHERSTUFF exists doesn't mean this should. FWIW, Childbirth is actually sourced, Parenting is a mess and already tagged accordingly. For whatever reason, Category:Parenting isn't loading for me. But none of that matters here. It's not encyclopedic, it's Dr. Spock whereas someone going to an encyclopedia could be researching childbirth. Note, not associated with any of these articles except for the PROD/AfD here. TRAVELLINGCARIMy storyTell me yours 11:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but reduce description of its contents to a brief summary of the kind of things carried, for, not a "how to" list. Perhaps add external links to authoritative childcare site(s) which go into that level of detail. More content needed about history, styles, materials, uses, sociology, celebrity extravaganzas, etc. The bags seem an encyclopedic topic, but not the instruction list on how to use. PamD (talk) 12:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary. An encyclopedic article could be written on this topic, but this isn't it. Powers T 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
    • And now it is. Keep. Powers T 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but rewrite. Poor article, good topic. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep but clean up. There are certainly some OR issues, but there is certainly more content than a dicdef that could lend itself to a nice article that is verifiable, if only through about a bajillion parenting books and magazines out there, and just as many patents for diaper bag designs. I'm sure that there are also some scholarly publications that discuss the diaper bag in a sociological context. In the case where there are certainly reliable sources regarding a topic, OR concerns are a surmountable problem and not a reason to delete. LaMenta3 (talk) 19:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a child-rearing manual. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep and rewrite. There is room for this article, but major changes needed as suggested by PamD. KnightLago (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • strong keep there are plenty of reliable sources about this.[1] The special, the random, the lovely Merkinsmum 22:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep + tidy/rewrite. I'll have a go at fixing it up myself but no, it's not a simple dicdef - Alison ❤ 23:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep with a prayer for clean-up. Sources could be drawn from patents on this item: [2], books on proper usage [3]. Seems comparable to Baby bottle. Canuckle (talk) 23:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- the article needs to more clearly express notability and have a stronger lead, but in an everyday context, diaper bags are quite notable -- ask any parent. The accoutrements of everyday life -- bags, bottles, blankets -- have a place in the encyclopedia as well (remember, wikipedia includes all encyclopedias in one, including a hypothetical encyclopedia of childcare), and deserve a good description. I'm curious what the history of such bags are, the origins of the term, if known, and the current market for them (it's quite large). -- phoebe/(talk) 00:57, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- we have articles on the purse and the briefcase. I don't see why the diaper bag is different. It does need a rewrite though.--66.245.217.168 (talk) 01:42, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep -- largely rewritten and referenced now. — Catherine\talk 17:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep This article is in pretty good shape now, properly referenced and encyclopedic. -- Atamachat 00:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
I just want everyone to know I appreciate their hard work. :)--Thecurran (talk) 08:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - And no transwiki. As stated above, we have Purse and Briefcase and they weren't transwikied. This is probably the most short sighted nomination for deletion I've ever seen. pschemp | talk 20:27, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    Comment: And don't forget Manbag... Canuckle (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
    Yeah, well the article was nothing more than a dictionary definition before. That wasn't short-sightedness, it was just reality. Powers T 14:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't use the word short-sighted myself, but I wouldn't disagree with it either. Not only did the WP:AFD break WP:EQ as propounded in the 2nd - 4th points of WP:Guide to deletion#Nomination, as well as its subpoints, but it did so literally within 33 minutes of the article's creation. Especially when one takes into account the WP:PROD chatter, the tag response delay, and the initial shock, that's precious little time to respond by looking up and listing appropriate citations. I'm glad though that the process has given the article a shot in the arm and made me a better Wikipedian. :)--Thecurran (talk) 20:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Nice job. Hobit (talk) 15:17, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
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.