Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diablog


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 21:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Diablog

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This comment is in response to this page having been tagged for speedy deletion. I am the author of the current definition and do not intend this to be advertising for a product. Do the reviewers not agree that Diablog could become a term of significant like 'blog' and that it could potentially be applied to any 2 person computer mediated dialogue, especially if it resulted in some form of publication. I would rather remove the reference to the product than have this potentially important term deleted, and will in the next day or two, try to construct a definition without reference to the product. Meanwhile if anybody else has opinions on this I will take them into account in constructing the new definition.
 * Delete. Non-notable neologism. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Page doesn't seem encyclopedic. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 07:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Dictionary definition without any chance of expansion. Neologism. - Mgm|(talk) 09:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Ok...where do we start. Fails WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:N and is WP:MADEUP and I'm sure we could go on from there.  The editor has put his comments on the article page and says "that Diablog could become a term of significant like 'blog' and that it could potentially be..."  I would suggest a speedy even or some more deletes in here to WP:SNOW this article...  --Pmedema (talk) 19:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Snowball delete. Doesn't seem to fit any speedy criterion (db-web is pushing it) but it sure doesn't look like it has a chance of warranting being kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Author Comment (Keep)
 * Delete as per nom. (I added the Author comment as a way of bringing it into discussion) I will now remove it from article.--Beligaronia (talk) 09:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have now updated the article. Please take another look. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HappyandGrumpy (talk • contribs) 21:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) This comment is also in response to this page having been tagged for speedy deletion. Why are you all so keen to speedily delete this entry for a term which will doubtless shortly be in common parlance? At this rate it is a wonder anything new gets in here; self-appointed censors are not constructive in my opinion. The definition of neologism is quite apposite and should be be acceptable in noting lanugage development. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Human touch (talk • contribs) 21:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Delete as per Pmedema above. - DustyRain (talk) 17:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Oh and btw, WP:SNOW. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:COATRACK for the author's blog. &mdash;  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 15:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Author Comment (Keep)
 * Human Touch Comment (Keep)
 * Comment. As you said yourself the term is not yet in common parlance therefore is not notable and is not yet part of language development. Thank you.--Beligaronia (talk) 02:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-encyclopedic, dictionary definition with some POV and COI from author. -- THE DARK LORD TROMBONATOR  02:43, 20 November 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.