- 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) 19:53, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- TaaaS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Neologism with no evidence that it is used or notable. Sgroupace (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This seems to be advertising for a single blog and/or the blogger's own services. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Appears promotional and no relevant Google News results. BurtAlert (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. —BurtAlert (talk) 18:42, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. No indication of external notability and obviously being used for spam by Jonathon Wright (talk · contribs) (look at the author listed on the blog). OSborn arfcontribs. 03:14, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-notable nelogism, as stated in nomination. Dialectric (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2011 (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.