Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Typecasting (blogging)


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:26, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Typecasting (blogging)

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Has been PRODded twice, so we're here. While a search is difficult given other meanings of type casting, I cannot find any evidence that this was a notable blogging trend, nor any appropriate redirect as an ATD. There were lots of blogging fads, but this one didn't appear to have any lasting impact. Star  Mississippi  15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  Star   Mississippi  15:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: Firstly, the thing existed, sometime before 2012. Secondly, a search for "Typecasting" + blogging -wikipedia, despite Google's confident prediction of about 686,000 results, actually has under 200 hits in all, and many of those are about alternative uses of "typecasting: defining people by race or class, actors only getting roles of a fixed type, blogging about typefaces, defining data types in programming languages, etc. There are thus extremely few hits about the blogging use of "typecasting". A book (self-published?) offers a bare definition - not a substantial mention. The two sources used in the article are reliable, but "An ode to clicky keys" only offers the briefest of mentions of typecasting, not a substantial discussion; it's unclear whether Strikethru is a reliable source. It looks as if Polt 2015 is a substantial mention, perhaps the only one. I'm afraid there is really not nearly enough here to demonstrate notability, let alone to justify an article or even to cite the material in the article decently. What we have is part WP:OR, part WP:NEO (or DICDEF if you prefer), and a weak dash of sourcing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete: In addition to above, this article reads like a personal essay of the author (User:Riwo) written to promote the idea of typing stuff out on paper and then scanning it. Sources do not appear substantial and in fact only two sentences actually are supported in the entire article. Anton.bersh (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Not notable and not enough media coverage available. I agree with Anton.bersh. VincentGod11 (talk) 12:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.