Talk:Catblogging
(Redirected from Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Catblogging)
Catblogging was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made below the archived discussion rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was NO CONSENSUS TO DELETE
Cute, but a dicdef of a slang neologism that doesn't belong here. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 23:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I really liked Kevin Dunn and the Tribe of Women from back in the old days of Athens music. I feel sure that he's not the one posting kitty pictures. Neologism to describe one person's habits, non-encyclopedic. Geogre 01:19, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. A significant blogging phenomenon. The New York Times Technology section did an article on it recently. [1]. It is a feature of many of the better known blogs namely Instapundit. If its noteworthy enough for the New York Times, then surely it is significant enough for Wikipedia. Capitalistroadster 09:53, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I knew I'd read about it somewhere. Note, though, that newspapers are increasingly large things, and nowadays often print 'human interest' stories - nice stories, but of no real significance whatsoever. These stories fit well in magazines and even your modern newspaper, but I wouldn't call them encyclopedic in themselves. Since I don't feel this can be expanded, it might be better off as one line in an article on blogging in general. Average Earthman 09:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Trivial and not encyclopedic. Newspapers often do human interest stories on unimportant issues. just because a newspaper reports on something does not mean an encyclopedia should. Indrian 17:32, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)
- Comment: I have to agree that it's not, by itself, notable because Circuits mentioned it. Circuits leaves me colder than deep space ("Buy a Mac! Buy a Mac!"), and this mention just looks like a "didja know?" thing. I'd put this mention (rather than article on or discussion of) in the NYT on the same footing as a joke told on Howard Stern. Mass exposure, but a bubble. Geogre 18:11, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Delete as the article currently stands. If someone wants to write an encyclopedic article about catblogging (and I don't), great, but right now it reeks of self-promotion, and without the promotion it is a dictionary definition of a compound word. Posting pictures of cats to the Internet is not notable even if the New York Times thinks it is. Besides, kittypix predates calpundit by a year and a half. — mendel ☎ 02:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. I'm in favor of documenting ephemera. Years from now, people might want to know about fads and trends of the early 21st century. This one, however, doesn't even rise to that level. It's just not significant enough. JamesMLane 19:58, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep--[[User:OldakQuill|Oldak Quill]] 00:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect into Weblog. It's marginally notable, but probably doesn't deserve its own article. --Goobergunch 03:02, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Taco Deposit | Talk-o Deposit 14:29, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
- Merge and redirect with Weblog. Andre (talk) 20:53, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
End archived discussion -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:25, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Start a discussion about improving the Catblogging page
Talk pages are where people discuss how to make content on Wikipedia the best that it can be. You can use this page to start a discussion with others about how to improve the "Catblogging" page.
