Talk:Boatnerd

as a courtesy to other contributors please explain complicated or controversial edits on the talk page

Another contributor performed a radical informationectomy on this article, providing only the brief edit summary "toned down advertising-like text; rm empty fields in citations"

First, in general, the excision of six paragraphs merits more discussion than a half sentence.

Second, I wrote the original draft, and I have zero ties to boatnerd, other than reading their site, and citing some of their pages in wikipedia articles. So, the assertion that this article was advertizing-like, with its implication that I was in a conflict of interest is both nonsense, and frankly insulting.

Third, the wikipedia only uses reliable authoritative sources as references. This means we never use garden variety "blogs" as references. But, there are online sites that call themselves blogs, or that are sometimes called blogs, that are as reliable and authoritative, or even more reliable and authoritative, than the writings of professional journalists and columnists. Is boatnerd one of them? Absolutely! That is why I thought it was important for the article to make clear actual newspapers cite boatnerd, or wrote articles specifically about boatnerd. The individual behind the anonymous IP who performed the informationectomy was incorrect to regard this as "advertizing-like". It was information about the topic, informative in and of itself, that helped establish boatnerd's wikipedia-notability. Geo Swan (talk) 13:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

This is not Wikiadvertising

Is this page really even necessary? It's formatted and reads like an advertisement, not like an informational page. Lots of websites the size of Boatnerd don't have pages on Wikipedia, nor should they. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.244.71.80 (talk) 05:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)