Talk:Parenting, Inc.
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Google shows...
The book to have been the subject of at least two NPR programs
- Talk of the Nation: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89434940
- Morning Edition: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89333925&ft=1&f=3
Plus confirms all the reviews listed in the article itself. Plus shows an article about the book on Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/mwt/feature/2008/03/29/parenting_inc/).
A chapter(?) reprinted in Babble (http://www.babble.com/CS/blogs/strollerderby/archive/tags/Parenting+Inc_2E00_/default.aspx)
An article (series of articles?) in the Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040403217_pf.html http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thecheckout/2008/03/parenting_inc_part_deux.html
And large volumes of blog-chatter.
Nexis shows discussion in the print media
- "Oh, baby! Look at you now in designer duds; Celebrity kids set standard as moms splurge on toddlers' clothes," Chicago Sun Times, March 21, 2008
- "Cashing In On The Children," National Post (f/k/a The Financial Post) (Canada), April 5, 2008
- "New parents buy into consumer craze," Buffalo News (New York), March 25, 2008 Tuesday
- "Corporate America gets in on parenting," Nanaimo Daily News (British Columbia), April 5, 2008
- "High price of parenting," Ottawa Citizen, April 7, 2008
- "Are today's toys educational or do they inhibit learning?" Tomorrow's Trust: A Review of Catholic Education, April 1, 2008
and others.
The article might be best tagged as a stub, but I think the book is notable. Uucp (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:Advert not WP:Notability[edit]
The article is being speedily deleted because of advertising not notability! Toddst1 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
- WP:Advert has two section -- "Advertisements masquerading as articles," and "External link spamming." Which of these do you think is a problem, and why? The article seems clean by both standards to me. Uucp (talk) 17:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
I've declined the speedy deletion tag; the article is not blatant advertising for the book, and there are no links to where it can be purchased. The reviews appear to make it at least somewhat notable. It's still open to an AFD if anyone wishes to take that route. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)