Talk:Fatblogging: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Peter J. King m (typo.) |
imported>Beano Lee No edit summary |
||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
:I'm afraid that I'd want to delete this; it looks more like an advert than an encyclopædia article. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 09:51, 4 April 2007 (CDT) | :I'm afraid that I'd want to delete this; it looks more like an advert than an encyclopædia article. --[[User:Peter J. King|Peter J. King]] <span style="background:black"> [[User talk:Peter J. King|<font color="yellow"><b>Talk</b></font>]] </span> 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 [[CZ:Requested_Articles|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 [[Special:Shortpages|being very short]]. This can be discussed, and ultimately what's needed can be done. --[[User:Beano Lee|Beano Lee]] [[User talk:Beano Lee|(Talk)]] 15:50, 8 April 2007 (CDT) | |||
Revision as of 10:14, 8 April 2007
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 (CDT)