Talk:Keepapitchinin

Learn more about this page

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Keepapitchinin article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Latter Day Saint movement Low‑importance

	Latter Day Saint movement portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Mormonism and the Latter Day Saint movement on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Latter Day Saint movementWikipedia:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementTemplate:WikiProject Latter Day Saint movementLatter Day Saint movement articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Keepapitchinin
Ardis Parshall

Untitled

Previous related deletion discussion : Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ardis E. Parshall

keepapitchinin

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ardis E. Parshall

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Ardis Parshall

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page should not be speedy deleted because...

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (recent citations making it notable) --Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Needs sources

Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Most of this article is currently about the writer more than the blog that is the supposed topic. Only ref 10 has any significant coverage of the blog. Two refs have brief mentions, one ref is to the blog itself, and the rest of the refs don't even mention it. More sources (significant coverage) of Keepapitchinin are needed to support notability. Schazjmd (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

User:Schazjmd, I'll look for quotes that specifically reference Keepa. Btw WP's guidelines w rgd to blogs' notability seem somewhat flexible and I can't imagine Keepapitchinin could not pass muster. After all:

Numerous news mentions are entirely on some item or of research that Ardis uncovered and broke (to borrow a news journalism term for this history blog) on her blog...eg this Re Winston Churchill[1]).
As for her blog's extent of citation: See not only https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Ardis+E.+Parshall%22 but plug in "keepapitchinin" into Google Scholar as well.
In what may cause pause: This news piece[2] pertains to how scholars and writers launder--my term for it--research by those such as Ardis who've published online, these folks' apparently not wanting to ah sully their citations via mention of mere web logs: this itself ironically a mark of unprofessionalism as self-confidently conscientious scholars don't seem to harbor such fears. That said, How many Wikipedia article contributors have done the same launderings...even w rgd to Keepapitchinin? We've become somewhat nervous hereabouts about referencing blogs, No? Sometimes I too have bypassed online self-published sourcings such as to Ardis's website in my contributions to the encyclopedia, referring in their place only to the orig. sourcings that my actual online sources themselves had referenced. (There may well be WP articles that cite other authors who'd already "laundered," as I'd called it, Ardis's findings after their having gone through the stacks in search of the items she'd already highlighted at Keepapitchinin. What can you do! Anyway, this is a practice I now find embarrassing/unfortunate. There really ought to be a shaming shorthand term for it, if someone could inform me of what it is or coin one. I guess such a practice only truly shortchanges those such as Ardis who are original discoverers of whatever bit of research. Perhaps this is why Ardis doesn't provide footnotes w/in her Keepapitchinin posts. In turn, the fact Ardis doesn't give specific sourcing in her blog posts explains why any number of English-language Wikipedia entries do cite Keepapitchinin. See http://edwardbetts.com/find_link/Keepapitchinin .--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Add topic