Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moblog


 * 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 SkierRMH (talk) 05:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Moblog

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Failed prod. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep being a neologismn isn't on it's own a reason for deletion, and if it;s good enough for the BBC it's good enough for me. Artw (talk) 01:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep: I don't like neologisms but apparently this one is out there and pretty well known. BBC is just one source, but it appears to be notable. - Rjd0060 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - per Rjd.   jj137  ( Talk ) 02:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Common sense keep. An avalanche of references in the news. --- tqbf  04:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep: Clearly well known and not just something made up in school one day. - Mgm|(talk) 17:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per everyone else it seems. :-)  Stwalkerster  talk 21:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes Keep it There are an abundance of Mobile companies starting 'Moblogging' services. It's a very relevant term now and in the future as it will be an emerging market to watch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.228.221.132 (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, distasteful neologism it may be, but it also seems here to stay. Tim Ross ·talk  19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * keep this one is common sense to have with us yuckfoo (talk) 01:40, 23 November 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.