Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vglog

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. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vglog

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

I'm still surprised that we don't have a CSD criterion for "neologism". If someone thinks they can find one that fits (A7 web content, perhaps?) go for it. Ignatz mice•talk 03:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. Wouldn't be adverse to A7, but not sure if it fits exactly. Ansh6 6 6 06:43, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO / WP:MADEUP. Unverifiable, non-encyclopedic content, bordering on original research. I agree with the above comments about A7. — sparklism ^hey! 07:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per, I don't know, WP:GNG or something. I've always felt as though we would do well with three or four more CSD criteria. In my little nirvana, this would fall under one of them. Dea db eef 08:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it's unverifiable and made up to me.--MONGO 15:00, 8 August 2013 (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.