Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webceleb: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:50, 17 September 2007

Webceleb

I prodded this originally, but following a short discussion on User:WebCeleb, I decided to give the author a chance to prove to the community that this is an encyclopedic term. As is, fails WP:DICTDEF and WP:NEO, but author has promised sources to counteract that. I have suggested that a transwiki Wiktionary is in order here, and I stick by that. CosmicPenguin (Talk) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better suited as wikipedia entry than wiktionary

I feel this article would better suit wikipedia. I can see how basing a judgment off what content has been produced there may be a cause for concern. Understandably, you don't want a dictionary reference clogging up scholarly reference articles. Albeit, I think that simply defining the topic will not clarify it's origin, and will limit my ability to cite its usage in today's society.

There are many different ways the word webceleb is being referenced, which distinguishes it from other wikipedia articles such as internet celebrities. I intend to show what is needed to establish yourself as a webceleb, discuss growth pertaining to hyperlocal media attention, contrast a webceleb's rise in fame with conventional celebrities, cite some popular examples, and suggest potential outlets if one desires to become a webceleb.

I've already begun to reference the technological advancements necessary to access this means of delivering content, and will progress to cover what i've mentioned above. Does this still categorize this topic as a dictionary article? I can easily delete the pronunciation key and part of speech if that is what derives this conclusion.

I started this as a W.I.P with hopes of building up its content. Am i under the wrong impression? Would i have been better off creating an account, claiming the word entry, leaving it blank for some time period, and then uploading all the content? If so, i will gladly write the entire piece first, then open it up for critiquing. WebCeleb 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 4: / Line 4: @@
 :{{la|Webceleb}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Webceleb|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 17#{{anchorencode:Webceleb}}|View log]])</noinclude>
 I prodded this originally, but following a short discussion on [[User:WebCeleb]], I decided to give the author a chance to prove to the community that this is an encyclopedic term.  As is, fails [[WP:DICTDEF]] and [[WP:NEO]], but author has promised sources to counteract that.  I have suggested that a transwiki [[wikt:Main Page|Wiktionary]] is in order here, and I stick by that. [[User:CosmicPenguin|CosmicPenguin]] ([[User talk:CosmicPenguin|Talk]]) 00:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
+==Better suited as wikipedia entry than wiktionary==
+I feel this article would better suit wikipedia.  I can see how basing a judgment off what content has been produced there may be a cause for concern.  Understandably, you don't want a dictionary reference clogging up scholarly reference articles.  Albeit, I think that simply defining the topic will not clarify it's origin, and will limit my ability to cite its usage in today's society.
+There are many different ways the word webceleb is being referenced, which distinguishes it from other wikipedia articles such as [[internet celebrities]].  I intend to show what is needed to establish yourself as a webceleb, discuss growth pertaining to hyperlocal media attention, contrast a webceleb's rise in fame with conventional celebrities, cite some popular examples, and suggest potential outlets if one desires to become a webceleb.
+I've already begun to reference the technological advancements necessary to access this means of delivering content, and will progress to cover what i've mentioned above.  Does this still categorize this topic as a dictionary article?  I can easily delete the pronunciation key and part of speech if that is what derives this conclusion.
+I started this as a W.I.P with hopes of building up its content.  Am i under the wrong impression?  Would i have been better off creating an account, claiming the word entry, leaving it blank for some time period, and then uploading all the content?  If so, i will gladly write the entire piece first, then open it up for critiquing.
+[[User:WebCeleb|WebCeleb]] 00:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)