Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tard Blog (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 of the debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neologism used to describe three non-notable weblogs Paul 04:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I apologize as I neglected to check whether this had already been nominated for deletion. Unsurprisingly, it had been (surprisingly, it was kept.) If my AFD nom should be removed then remove it. Paul 04:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm confused with the nomination. Do you consider this to be a non notable neologism? Googling for this express seems to return a blog actually called "Tard Blob", which is a blog of someone working with mentally retarded kids. joshbuddy^talk 04:14, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, neologism. Royboycrashfan 04:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as nn unless someone can provide at least one instance of this blog being discussed in major media. I have no problem with the subject matter, there's just no evidence that the blog is notable. dbtfz^talk 04:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless verifiable evidence provided of significance. Capitalistroadster 04:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because I voted keep last time. Also, it has a fanlisting here if that means anything. I couldn't find it published anywhere, but that's probably because it was too offensive for the mainstream media. Ashibaka tock 06:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, fewer Google results than my site and no media mentions that I can find. -- Kjkolb 11:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unveifiable. --Terence Ong 12:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per User:Dbtfz. --Biggles 14:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Putting 3 unencyclopedic things together doesn't result in an encyclopedic thing. Ned Wilbury 14:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is real, as I've read the blogs, but I doubt it's notable. — Rebelguys2 ^talk 15:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-notable blog.--Isotope23 17:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very non-notable. Staxringold 23:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the old VfD's reasons. BTW, your blogs aren't linked on every single page of Tucker Max's website. --Rory096 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-notable. —-- That Guy, From That Show! ^(talk) 2006-03-08 02:59Z

• Keep This is decently well known and as we all know, WP:NOT paper kotepho 13:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Probably, Tucker's side projects (Tard Blog, Slow Children at Play, Hoo-ah, etc) should be combined into one page. But since that has not been done, keep. McJeff, 12 March 2006

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.