Talk:Keepapitchinin


 * Keepapitchinin
 * Ardis Parshall

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


 * keepapitchinin


 * Ardis E. Parshall


 * Ardis Parshall

This page should not be speedy deleted because...
This page should not be speedily deleted because... (recent citations making it notable) --Hodgdon&#39;s secret garden (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Needs sources
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)
 * 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:


 * 1) 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).
 * 2) 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.
 * 3) In what may cause pause: This news piece 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&#39;s secret garden (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2019 (UTC)