- 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. Jayjg (talk) 00:29, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogging ethics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod, reason was, "original research". Article reads like a blog post/opinion piece and cites another blogger as the only reference to substantiate its contents. The article's subject matter can potentially support an encyclopedic article along the lines of Journalism ethics and standards, but the article in its current state is unsalvageable POV/OR. Suggest deletion unless someone wants to attempt a complete rewrite in an encyclopedic tone, citing reliable sources. Muchness (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as patent original research. I'm not even sure how one would go about writing an article on the topic while keeping to NPOV/V. Bfigura (talk) 20:13, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete While I think it would be possible to create an article on this subject... this isn't it. Nothing to save here. Gigs (talk) 20:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:OR. Warrah (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.