Talk:Slow living

This article was nominated for deletion on 11 February 2016. The result of the discussion was keep.

I see that this article was flagged with: "non-notable movement with no significant secondary coverage instead all publications and sources are self published from within the movement"

While I agree that coverage has mainly been on the web, and less so in the press, it is a new movement that is gaining quick popularity world-wide. The UK, Japan, and the USA are particularly active. It seems appropriate for there to be a Wiki page for it.

Below are things I found on a quick Google search. The problem is not the amount of coverage, but the quality of the coverage and finding things good enough to warrant citation on a Wikipage. It seems that being a new movement, the media is just getting that hang of how to talk about it.

USA (Slow Living Summit): www.strollingoftheheifers.org
Publication by advocacy group is inherently not reliable
Australia: www.wellbeing.com.au
Publication by advocacy group is inherently not reliable
Japan: slowjapan.wordpress.com
blogs are not Reliable sources
Norway: www.theworldinstituteofslowness.com
Publication by advocacy group is inherently not reliable
Boston Globe: www.boston.com
Only mentions the movement briefly, does not signify notability of it, because it is in respect
NY Times: www.nytimes.com
Says nothing about slow living but plenty about other "Slow" concepts/movements
CNN: edition.cnn.com
Again says nothing about a "slow living" concept, instead treats a broader "slow" movement which may or may not include the slow living concept.

Snailwiki (talk) 15:23, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with Wikipedia is that articles need to meet WP:Notability and unless you can meet that very basic significant secondary coverage reliable secondary sources, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia quite yet. If it is catching on give it some time to manifest itself in some "objective" media or scholarship somewhere and then write the Wikipedia article. If you would like I can WP:Userfy the article so that we can work on making sure that we are writing an article about a concept that is both Notable and Verifiable. Many of your other "slow" articles are absolutely fine, such as Slow design or Slow food because it is something identified by other sources, but this one does not quite meet the basic standard. If you would like I can put this article through a deletion discussion to get more opinions of experienced Wikipedians, or like I said, the content can be WP:Userfy'd so that you can hold on to the writing and or integrate it into the appropriate articles that you have already been working on. Thank you for taking the time to respond to the prod, but I don't think you have actually proved why the article should be kept, Sadads (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Sadas. I trust your judgment on this and appreciate your guidance in making this wiki-worthy.

Below are a couple of other sources I found today. (I admit to being surprised by not finding more.) You will be able to discern if they meet the criteria or not. If they don’t, then perhaps, as you say, it’s not yet time for a separate page and I’d propose incorporating it into the Slow Movement page for now. I’d also appreciate it if you have suggestions on how best to distinguish between a “movement” and the “application of the philosophy of a movement” from the Wiki perspective.

Mother Earth News, “Slow is Beautiful” (excerpts from Less is More, and amazingly uses descriptive phrases without ever using “slow ling” exactly)
The New Yorker, “Va Bene”

Another Publication (I suppose by definition “from within the movement”?)

Parkins, Wendy. 2004. “Out of Time: Fast subjects and slow living”. In Time and Society, Vol. 13 No 2, pp. 363-382.

Snailwiki (talk) 17:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Update: http://www.todayszaman.com/news-245315-giant-pink-snails-to-bring--slow-living-concept-to-istanbul.html new article in Today's Zaman, most circulated English-language daily newspaper in Turkey] Snailwiki (talk) 17:03, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete[edit]

This reads like a blog entry. No reliable sources. Who will vote to delete this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.68.125.89 (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tone and WP:NPOV issues[edit]

This article appears to be written, to borrow a term from the entertainment sector, in an "in-universe" style with use of jargon and turns of phrase that are not neutral or encyclopedic. A major example is the "definition" of "local" as "not someone else's patch," which is sentimental glurge, not objective encyclopedic writing. This is why I tagged the article, to alert other copyeditors to the problem since I am not going to have time to delve into it for the next few days. Thanks to anyone who dives in. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:02, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've made made some minor edits to the page to improve the colloquial tone, such as adding formal language and combining some shorter sentences into one longer sentence. I also included a citation to a recently published academic book on slow cities, as this term was not defined and there was no citation linked to it previously.

This is the reference for the book:

Tranter, & Tolley, R. (2020). Slow Cities: Conquering Our Speed Addiction for Health and Sustainability. Elsevier. Snowdrop Fairy (talk) 01:07, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Slaewaz" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Slaewaz has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 7 § Slaewaz until a consensus is reached. ArcticSeeress (talk) 03:46, 7 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]