Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogoma
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. -- Cirt (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Blogoma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article was deprodded after some blog sources were added as external links. But it still appears to fail WP:NEO, as I am unable to find reliable source coverage of the term at a level to establish notability (some sources use the term, but do not write about the term itself). This appears to be a neologism, and wikipedia is not a dictionary. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This term does not seem to be significant: the article states that it is a pormanteau, but there doesn't seem to be any reason to use this term. I could make a term blogoca to mean the Canadian blogosphere.Curb Chain (talk) 10:46, 17 June 2011 (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.