Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blurg

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 speedy delete, author has consented, WP:CSD#G7. Kusma (t) 16:40, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blurg

Neologism coined by the author of the article. From his blog entry for today, "And to prove my point, I have added the word to wikipedia. Let's see what happens, you read it here first." Prod removed by author. --Onorem 13:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is another term apparently coined today on the same author's blog:

Delete both as non notable neologisms or maybe the first one for WP:POINT.--Tikiwont 14:10, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, self-admitted neologisms. Kusma (t) 14:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both I agree with the previous two arguments. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 15:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
leave as experiment If tumbleblog, an equally coined phrase can stay, why not these. Obviously tumbleblog was and is not a word either and therefor falls under the same neologism —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.69.245.109 (talk) 15:53, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Delete both Neologisms, made up by author of article. Lurker ^oi! 15:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
please leave These were both experiments in social behaviour and the phenomenon of word usage and spread. I have now removed all references for my own blog to show that it is experimental. Wikipedia has references for edublog, moblog, phlog to name but a few. These were obviously neologisms when they were first coined but because they have been given a thorough description they are allowed to remain. Whilst I will defer to the majority decision, with the influx of new technology and comms methods new words will be appearing regulary. And should it really be left in the hands of self confessed experts to do? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willco5 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Wikipedia does not exist for people to experiment on. These other neologisms were coined and covered by reliable sources before they were included here. You made these words up today. They are not notable at this time. If they catch on, there will be space here for them later. --Onorem 16:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Agreed. Please delete both. My sincere apologies. Consider this an experiment gone bad. It has proved one point though, that social networking is both speedy and consent must be given by all in the community. excellent.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willco5 (talk • contribs) 16:10, 8 March 2007 (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.