Talk:Bloggie

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

Deletion Proposal

Removing delete proposal, as the Bloggies - as web content - do meet the following criteria:

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations...

Note that the Bloggies have been covered by articles from the BBC and the Washington Post among others.

I see someone else has nominated this for delete. I don't know what more needs to be said: the topic clearly meets the requirements for inclusion, as documented above and in the links embedded in the article. If anything, what this article needs is to be expanded and additional information included. Something I will try to do as I have free time available.--Sprhodes 02:01, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, from WP:NEO:

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term.

Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles

In this case we clearly have at least two reputable secondary sources (BBC and Washington Post) which have published articles specifically addressing this award. This article does not, by my understanding, fail WP:NEO --Sprhodes 02:17, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundancy

This article seems redundant of blog award, and indeed, anything that can be found on this article can be found there as well. cacophony 05:04, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not merge the Bloggie related content into this page, and turn the blog award page into a disambiguation page also summarizing blog awards not notable enough to merit their own page? Glowimperial 01:27, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good plan to me. I'll look into working on it a bit if I have some free time, unless somebody else gets to it first. --Sprhodes 22:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also - maybe this pages' content should be moved to the more appropriate heading Weblog Awards and then this page should become a redirect to that page. Glowimperial 01:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirected. yandman 11:04, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]