Talk:Bullet journal/Archives/2020

No NPOV
This article reads in parts like an advertising. As I am no native speaker, I will make no changes here. Just to let you know that this text seems too enthusiastic to me. Examples: "but the possibilities are endless", "This helps users stay organized, productive, and on task (…)". This is promotion style. Greetings Maelcum (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Expanding the Bullet Journal page away from a stub
Hi! I just added content to the lead, Method and History sections of the article. The bulk of my edits are in the Method section, where I fleshed out more about the system. In the History section, I added that Ryder Carroll also gave a TED talk about the system. I did my best to avoid "how-to"s and to avoid any promotion. I am hoping to add more content, specifically about the styles and uses of bullet journaling, and perhaps more illustrative images.Bumblebee888 (talk) 16:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

More additions
I just added the content that I mentioned in my last post here - about the styles, use and economic impact of bullet journaling. I also changed the section titled "Requirements" to "Tools". I changed the phrasing because the bullet journal system is very flexible and adaptable, and there are no required tools that every person must use in order to bullet journal. Even a journal isn't required per se, since digital note-taking apps can be used instead. Bumblebee888 (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Proposition to delete article
This is just note taking, it is not a special thing.

People have been taking "notes" in "notebooks" for centuries, there is nothing new, different or interesting about "Bullet Journals" or the nonsense propagangda the corporations involved in pushing this have released.

The whole article reads like an advert.

It should be deleted ASAP. 82.10.140.18 (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Response to deletion proposal (keep)
The grounds for the proposal appear to be that the tone is insufficiently encyclopedic (WP:NPOV/WP:IMPARTIAL) ("reads like an advert") and that the topic is not notable (WP:N) ("it is not a special thing").

As the person who started this article, I would say that I have no particular stake or interest in the topic, so as far as intent, I have no business motivation, personal desire to promote the topic to make it seem like a special thing. It is, however, a pervasive cultural phenomenon. I started the article because I'd heard so much buzz for years and really didn't understand what it was all about. So I went to Wikipedia to read an article and found there wasn't one, and I did what I often do at that point: turn my curiosity and research into WP's gain. I assumed that I wasn't the only one who'd want to know about it. It's a gross metric, but I tend to think that when there's an article about a topic in the New York Times, it has passed the notability metric. I also note that in April 2020 the article earned a C-class rating; it's hard to get to C-class on something that isn't notable.

Regarding NPOV/Impartiality: it may be that this article needs some work on tone. I regard that not as a reason to delete it, but a reason to improve it. When I first published the article, User:Citrivescence marked it for having an insufficiently encyclopedic tone, I addressed the issue, and they removed the Tone flag. A lot of content has been added since then, and it may need another round of making it more encyclopedic. I note that the user who added most of the new content since the last Tone check, User:Bumblebee888, was logged in as a WikiEdu class member. It is to be expected that they may have had a less developed sense of encyclopedic style.

Finally, I note that the person who suggested this for deletion was an unlogged user. While that doesn't invalidate the observation, it means they have made it harder to engage them in meaningful conversation on the topic. -Kenirwin/ (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2020 (UTC)