Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Drunk blogging

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. *burp* Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Drunk blogging

Drunk blogging (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable neologism. No internal links. I doubt we could find any reliable sources for an such article; it consists basically of original research. Any mention of the topic could easily be incorporated into blog. --Slowking Man 12:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into the article blog. A google search shows about 150 unique hits. Although the article contains at least one external link, I do not think that the link is a reliable source of content. The low number of unique hits on google further states the case of the lack of notability on this subject. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, after some consideration, I have decided to change my opinion to Strong Delete. Lack of reliable sources for this subject is a concern here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 12:32, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

• Unlike drunk dialing, this appears to have no impact significant enough for any reliable sources to mention. Delete as unsourced. Kavadi carrier 13:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete outright as a non-notable neologism. Moreschi 13:46, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. We don't need articles on drunk blogging, drunk wikipedia editing, drunk emailing, drunk pie eating, or any other stupid crap. --- RockMFR 17:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete outright per Kavadi carrier. Andrew Levine 17:35, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as self-explanatory dicdef. It's just a combination of the words drunk and blogging. --Metropolitan90 17:57, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom TheRanger 19:04, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, and further my feelings suggest this perhaps should have been db'ed under nonsense. MidgleyDJ 19:41, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete WP:NOT urban dictionary. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 20:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete — not notable neologistic dicdef Martinp23 20:44, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and send drunk bloggers to AA. Danny Lilithborne 02:14, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Inadequatedly Caffeinated Delete oh my god my head hurts argh. *great big coffee sip* Uh, we're talking about a rather obvious content here. "Drunk blogging is when you blog while drunk" kind of obvious. Look, it's probably notable if you patent thing "X" and some other company patents "X over the Internet". Especially if there's bazillion lawsuits. But this isn't necessarily notable. We don't have article on Drunken Counter-Strike Tournaments, Drunken Astrophysics Exams, or Comment Moderation on Crack. We don't need to cover every obvious syllogistic expansion of articles (as in "it's possible to do X while drunk, therefore we can make an article 'doing X while drunk'"). Cover it in main article, though I don't really think this is widespread enough to be considered a notable phenomenon. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 12:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as amusing put above. Robovski 00:45, 8 November 2006 (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.