Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blournalist

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. – AB CD 23:12, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Blournalist

neologism, zero google hits, do not transwiki --nixie 10:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Delete not encyclopedic, would be prepared to consider a transwiki if somebody could prove the existence of this neologism, I can't seem to find it anywhere. Oliver Keenan 10:48, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism, dictionary definition. Megan1967 10:52, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, neologism dic def. Mgm|^(talk) 11:20, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
Delete, awful-sounding neologism, hope it never takes off. Kappa 14:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Maybe the sound isn't right, but "blournalism" has been used before (not here) and if blournalism is ok, shouldn't the noun be as well. User:usherml 10:44, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - Well Bournalism gets 26 google hits, 6 unique. More than 0, but still looks like a protologism to me. Kappa 17:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete: neologism. Blournalism doesn't need an article, either—it only draws six unique Google hits. If a word nominally related to blogging can't generate some serious Google hits.... --TenOfAllTrades | Talk 19:08, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete, replace with redirect to blog to keep everybody happy. R adiant _* 13:10, Apr 18, 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.