Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diavlog

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. Anthøny 08:36, 28 October 2007 (UTC). Having reconsidered, following a request from an interested Wikipedian, the arguments put forward by each party in this discussion, I retract my original decision and close this debate as Delete, without prejudice to review. I apologise to any parties for any disruption my previous closure caused, as well as making this mistake - we all do it once in a while, but nevertheless it should not have happened. Anthøny 18:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Diavlog

Diavlog (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

An unsourced article on a blogging neologism, deletion requested by an anon at my talk page. No independent sources, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Redirect to Video blog after merging any relevant material, SqueakBox 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete The article does not demonstrate that the term has gained acceptance outside of bloggingheads.tv. There is only one reliable source and it too references bloggingheads.tv Perhaps the article can be recreated later as it currently doesn't seem to be notable.Pdelongchamp 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep Just added some more sources (tons more available if needed). This term is used in the same way that vlog is used, and although not in as frequent of use, it is clear from googling that it has sufficiently entered the lexicon to be of importance enough for entry here. Additionally, added list of people who already have wikipedia pages who are frequent diavloggers. (many, if not most, of which use the term themselves either on their blogs or elsewhere) The list is indeed large, and I would not be opposed to paring it down, but I only included a portion of the total that I could have included. (attempting to show the widespread use of the word, even among those who already are important enough to have wikipedia pages) (Cardsplayer4life 20:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC))
Cardsplayer4life, I think the issue with the article is that it doesn't contain reliable sources that assert its notability. Also, the article contents are not verifiable. I can't read a single line, ask "what reliable source said this?" and be able to find out. For all I know, it could be someone's opinion. Please reference the sources you used to write the article. That will make a big difference. Pdelongchamp 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Meh. I'd say BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and "Diavlog" isn't. Maybe write an article on BH.tv, and make this a redirect to it. Thanks, Luc "Somethingorother" French 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep This is already a fairly common term, and in time it will be as common as blog or vlog. It should not be merged with vlog because diavlogs are not vlogs. -asx- 05:49, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
-asx-, could you reference your claim that it is a common term or place the references into the article if they are reliable sources? thanks. Pdelongchamp 21:03, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete, sources fail to establish notability. That a blogging neologism has a presence on listserv should not come as a surprise to anyone, but an encyclopedia requires a bit more authority. Deiz talk 09:39, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - lacks reliable sources. -- Whpq 17:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Is a term that is used by video bloggers; Doesn't need to be removed as per above comments. Liveforever22 21:23, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Comment - But none of the keep opinions provide any back up for the opinion that it should be kept. Reliable sources? Verifiability? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whpq (talk • contribs) 00:41, 25 October 2007 (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.