Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blog analysis


 * 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  d elete as unsourced. - Mailer Diablo 12:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Blog analysis

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research essay with no sources. Ridernyc (talk) 15:18, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think this could be sourced. For Example, a quick and dirty Google search yields this Ars Technica link: US military turns to "blog analysis" for intelligence.  I say keep or redirect to Data mining.-- Te xa sD ex   &#9733;  21:55, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 18:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete If you're analyzing blogs, you'll call it blog analysis. That doesn't make it a term or a field of study.  WP:N WP:RS.  This may very well become a common term in the future, but it doesn't appear to be ready for WP yet. -Verdatum 21:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep It is a term I have been seeing recently. The article needs a lot of work but it is a valid subject. MortimerCat 00:09, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research and neologism unless someone provides a substantial rewrite with sources.-h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 11:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete' Per Verdatum. Twenty Years 15:18, 4 December 2007 (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.