Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blankwaller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Blankwaller

Blankwaller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Non-notable neologism. One Google hit (for me, results may vary). Seems to have been coined by the article creator. nneonneo talk 00:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete per WP:NEO and WP:NOT#DICT. The term was not coined by the article creator however: article does contain external link to news site where phrase was used. - Icewedge (talk • goat) 03:31, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
    • From the article: "...originally coined by Parag Shah...", and the author is "ParagSh". The Guardian article says the same thing. It's also an advertisement for his company "Art-Switch" because that's the only context in which it has been used -- i.e. it's a marketing term coined by this company's founder. nneonneo talk 15:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, just a protologism that hasn't yet taken any sort of root. --Dhartung | Talk 04:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong delete - Blatant protologism. asenine say what? 05:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral leaning towards a very weak delete - per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICDEF like stated above, however, the creator does provide links to show the phrase in use. If it is kept, it needs expanding. I'm going to see if I can enhance it myself. If I can't find anything to help the article then I'll change my vote accordingly —— Ryan • t | c 10:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete - not only a neologism, but a slyly disguised advertisement for the original author's company? Look at his name, the content of the page and the three refs and you be the judge. I see that nneonneo and I have arrived at the same conclusion. Merenta (talk) 01:29, 18 May 2008 (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.