- 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. - Mailer Diablo 11:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blog-related neologism. Page has no content except for a vague explanation of what this made-up word is supposed to mean in blogger's minds and an external link. Femmina 20:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless a reliable (non-blog) non-trivial source is added to the article. --Interiot 20:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Amanduhh 21:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO Danny Lilithborne 23:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per all of the above (most importantly, lack of sources). --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:18, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP:NEO / unsourced article --timecop 03:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Could probably have done a speedy deletion on it. Mikemill 01:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- BegoneButholer 07:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Deleteburst all blogging neologisms. Guy (Help!) 10:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Utter nonsense. - Abscissa 18:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Jeff 18:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Measure 20:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. The Fox Man of Fire 01:10, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. -Ich (talk) 06:58, 7 December 2006 (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.