Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blogosophy

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. Neutrality^talk 22:58, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Blogosophy

dicdef, maybe neologism. -guety is talking english bad 02:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Lot of hits on google but can't see article being more than a dicdef. Ben Nevis 02:21, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

What's a dicdef?

A dictionary definition. An article that just says this is what the word means. The idea is that if it's an encyclopaedia article, there should be more to say. Ben Nevis 02:35, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

• A dictionary definition. If Blogosophy is a real concept, then this article should be extended beyond a dicdef by discussing the subject in more detail. Many important stub articles are dicdefs, and that's ok, probably noone's going to nominate those. The real question is will the article be extended so it is more in-depth than a dictionary definition. --Mysidia (talk) 02:36, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah. thanks. --Eric Boutilier

• 'Delete or Move to Wiktionary. Type O Spud 02:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete this is not a real concept. its not encyclopedic. it doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 04:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. "define:Blogosophy" at Google doesn't return any result. The Google results for "Blogosophy" point to "blogging on philosophy", not "philosophy of blogging", as the article mentions. utcursch | talk 08:17, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Really just an attempt to create a gateway to the three blogs listed. Marskell 10:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like an ad to me. Neoligism, despite google hits. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:16, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

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.