Talk:The Incidental Economist

This article was nominated for deletion on 8 March 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

The blog described has been cited by The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, National Public Radio, Financial Times, The Atlantic, The New Republic, Business Week, Mother Jones, The Huffington Post, Politico, The Hill, and other publications and blogs of significance. I added a link at the end to a list that proves this. I think it makes this blog worthy of note, at least as worthy of many other blogs in Wikipedia. 74.104.154.203 (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aside, the requirements for establishing notability are pretty clear. Reliable sources that discuss the blog in question need to be cited here. The blog itself does not count as a reliable source, even if that webpage offers a list of media mentions. To be clear, the sources need to discuss the blog (and not simply the author(s) of the blog) in a non-trivial manner. Steamroller Assault (talk) 18:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have been trying to add in the addition of Aaron Carroll to the blog. I even added in a reference to the blog which announces his joining it. I am not trying to get into an edit war, and I did not think this was a controversial addition. Can I get some feedback as to why this should not be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.46.219 (talk) 03:56, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's your feedback right now. Just because someone joins a paper, blog or show doesn't not make them notable. Please read WP:N and WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY as you are really pushing this edit. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Themes[edit]

I thought it was still hard to get a sense of what the blog is about so I added a "Recurring Themes" section to highlight some of the types of content. I don't know if this is normal and customary. I looked at some other entries on blogs and there doesn't seem to be a standard. NBERgal (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research and has no place there. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge." This must be a prime example of this exception? --Wicked247 (talk) 08:31, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citations[edit]

This tiny piece has a dozen or more in-line links instead of proper citations. If these were converted to actual footnotes, we might get a better idea of whether anything in the article is reliable. Please read WP:CITE and WP:EL for guidance. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So out of date[edit]

I am not a regular user of Wikipedia, so I apologize in advance for possibly not following customs/rules here, but I wanted to point out that this page is woefully out of date and chock full of misinformation. I know this because I am closely associated with the blog that this entry is about. That being the case, I'm barred from editing the entry. So I won't. I recommend deleting the whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.133.6.2 (talk) 18:48, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]