Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geneablog


 * 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. Mr.Z-man 17:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Geneablog

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

Neologism with few notable hits that aren't self-titled so-called geneablogs, most serious Genealogists with blogs call them blogs, not geneablogs. Megan Smolenyak Smolenyak, for example, simply used a blogspot account for a while, calling it her blog. ThuranX (talk) 20:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Equendil Talk 20:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete I couldn't find any sources writing about the term (as opposed to using it in passing to refer to blogs of a genealogical nature). I think this is a non-notable neologism and, unless several sources come to light, there is no way to write a verifiable encyclopaedic article on the subject.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 21:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and Sheffield: apparently a non-notable neologism. Cliff smith  talk  00:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as completely unsourced WP:OR with no referenced value. If there were any sourced material, it would be useful to merge to genealogy, but there is not, so it is not. Cirt (talk) 11:26, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, fails the everything test. RFerreira (talk) 22:16, 11 September 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.