Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blerd

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 redirect to Nerd. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 14:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blerd

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is asserted to be a slang term with definition and etymology. No credible claim is made of notability WP:N per WP:GNG in either the article or its weak sourcing. Article also runs afoul of Not a Dictionary WP:NAD. Article was previously nominated PROD. Tag was removed. Ad Orientem (talk) 22:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nerd. Although this term does seem to be getting a small amount of coverage, it's not really at the point where I'd feel comfortable with saying that it satisfies WP:NEO. At this time, not much more than a dictionary definition is possible. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:36, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree Article has zero notability and no WP:RS sources. See also WP:ANS. There is nothing here worth salvaging. It smells like an attempt to increase the term's usage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here's a few: CNN, NPR, and NBC. In another year or two, The New York Times will probably discover it. However, until then, it I think this belongs as a paragraph in Nerd, as it's still emerging and none of the few reliable sources I've found present it as anything other than a quirky neologism that lacks mainstream acceptance. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:41, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Conceding that there are some sources (nice finds) I still think it lacks N and fails NAD. But I've tagged it for merging as you suggest. -Ad Orientem (talk) 20:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect - Not notable enough to stand it it's own; might merit a sentence or two in Nerd. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:59, 22 January 2014 (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.