Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogroll (2nd nomination)
- 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 Redirect & Merge. This doesn't seem to be developing and is otherwise a dicdef with no real life sourced cited. We already have this at the list of blogging terms so a redirect and merge (help yourselves) seems the sensible course for a permanent semi-stub. Spartaz Humbug! 18:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
Per WP:DICT and WP:NEO. The result of the debate nearly two years ago was Keep, but the page has improved little if any since then. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 21:55, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NEO, fails WP:RS, WP:V with a dash of WP:OR and WP:WEASEL thrown in. Ten Pound Hammer • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?) 22:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep It's been around long enough not to be a neologism. Wl219 22:45, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 14:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect to blog, as a fairly minor aspect of blogs not really needing its own article. the wub "?!" 14:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge and redirect Presents useful info and isn't biased or stubby, thangs I'd look for in deleting a current events style articleMbisanz 02:31, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. This has been around long enough to have become regular parlance; it is definitely no longer a neologism. Italiavivi 19:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - just landed on the page today and it was informative —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.193.175.109 (talk) 21:46, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
- 'Keep At first I was going to say merge and redirect, but Blog is starting to get somewhat bulky already. It's fairly minor, but it's still a notable term at this point, and more than just a dicdef. In short -- I see no reason to delete. spazure (contribs) (review) 08:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Selectively merge with Blog. Article has not demonstrated subject's individual notability. Most of it is original research, too. --Alksub 20:17, 1 September 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.