Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blobject


 * 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 23:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Blobject

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Made up term which hasn’t reached common parlance regarding arbitrary items and architecture, not documented in a variety of literature and at best is a description of something    Kadzi    (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Visual arts, Architecture,  and Products.    Kadzi    (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - I added a source from Vox, and combined with the other sourcing in the article, I think there's more than enough to push it past WP:NEO. PianoDan (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: Very limited use neologism that is not more than "blobby designs". --  Otr500 (talk) 11:31, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, has a lot going for it. The sources, including the new Vox source, the details of these other sources, the Bruce Sterling titles, and fuller coverage mentioned in Further Reading and External links. Seems a notable topic (becoming more notable by the hour). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources demonstrate that it's an actual term used in the world, not made up by some Wikipedian. --Albany NY (talk) 04:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * On seeing this, I immediately confused it with Binary large object, usually referred to as a BLOB but often as a blobject. I started searching and found a company. After these mis-starts, I found a bunch of articles including this review and this art show, both from 2003. Then I kept finding more and more including, . I found a band named blobject, and kept finding more. Altogether, newspapers.com had 109 matches, but I would say about 30 were "bad", and about 15 were about the company, maybe 5 were about the band. That left somewhere around 50 about the term, and many of these were significant coverage. In my opinion, this is sufficient to Keep this article under WP:GNG, but some work should be done to acknowledge the other uses of the term. Jacona (talk) 12:44, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep: The sources in the article, including this one, contain significant coverage. 𝕱𝖎𝖈𝖆𝖎𝖆 (talk) 09:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep I found some more sources: this [] in Metropolis, this [] in Stanford Magazine, and this [] in the Christian Science Monitor. A redirect wouldn't work since there are two people who could credibly claim to have invented the term, based on the sourcing. TimTempleton (talk) (cont)  22:34, 9 August 2022 (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.