Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New Blogism


 * 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 for a lot of reasons mentioned below. Snowballed. Only single-purpose accounts have made arguments for keeping this article and there has been too much vandalism/trolling wasting people's time. —Quarl (talk) 2006-08-12 20:22Z 

New Blogism

 * Hoax and nonsense. "New Blogism dates back to the Ancient Greeks" - Really? Check out the external link at bottom. Of course, I could be wrong. Mattisse(talk) 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Its better nonsense than we usually get though.  —   pd_THOR  undefined | 01:40, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Come back after you get out of crack rehab. --Xrblsnggt 01:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Whilst it would be a shame to loose this fine piece of pseudoacademise, there's no references, and wreaks of (whatever that word for invented new terms is) LinaMishima 02:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unsourced, mostly WP:BALLS. -- Kinu t /c  03:57, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable, non-sense, and unsourced. *~Daniel~* ☎ 04:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * LinaMishima – neologisms? Delete per Kinu. &mdash; riana_dzasta &bull; t &bull; c &bull; e  &bull; ER &bull; 06:52, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't Delete I would like to defend this piece. First of all, nothing in it is untruthful or nonsense in any way. Secondly, it DOES contain references. I know the term is not (yet?) widely used in the Anglo-American world, but then again I would like to remind you that there are millions of non-native english speakers who also make use of the english version of wiki simply because it's the largest. //edit: I removed the ancient Greek 'joke', you guys. Odoakerston, 12 August 2006
 * Odakerston is the article's creator (see Special:Contributions/Odoakerston. Srose (talk)  18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't Delete I agree. Very informative and entertaining. Moreover, true in every sense.Deef Gutfreund, 12 August 2006 Comment added by User:85.147.135.20. Forged signature, no such user on Wikipedia. Weregerbil 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Odoakerston. the term is not (yet?) widely used in the Anglo-American world makes it a neologism if not a protologism on the en WP. I note that there are no interlanguage links on the article, nor does it exist on the nl wikipedia. And Deef_Gutfreund, Verifiability, not truth is the criterion. Tonywalton | Talk 11:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't make a nl entry since I figured most dutch people use the english version anyway. Did make one just now, though. --Odoakerston 11:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment user's second voteAfdIsNotAVote(TM). Weregerbil 11:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops.
 * Delete NCurse [[Image:Nuvola_apps_edu_science.png|16px]]work 14:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. -AMK152 15:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO, WP:NFT Ohconfucius 15:26, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep Percy Nobby Norton uses this very style on his blog nobbynorton.blogspot.com. I believe that this is an important style of writing and that it probably does date back to the ancient greek. However, the ultra-right wing nature of wikipedia will probably mean it will be deleted. What a shame. -- Bpazolli 15:53, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per the "ultra right wing conspiracy". Percy Nobby Norton is not notable, and "probably does tade back to the ancent greek (sic)" fails WP:V. Resolute 16:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Keep Keep Vis-a-vis the old "goes back to the Ancient Greeks"-controversy, I would like to remark that although the claim might be slightly undersubstantialized, this is not really a problem, since we have to see it in its context of New Blogism. Blog-readers still largely prefer to consume texts that are written in the classical "claim-proof" structure, which principally reminds us of mathematics -- which in fact did originate with the Ancient Greeks, no question there. New Blogism is making the point that claim-proof is very much an outdated way of structuring a text and is substituting for it a revolutionary claim-claim-structure, which is currently finding its way upwards in all kinds of intromation (the spelling of this word is very much a topic of dispute) channels all over the world. Giannis Kouros 19:30, 12 August 2006 (CET) No such user; this comment was left by Srose  (talk)  18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't deleteThough naturally there cannot be many references yet as it concerns such a new phenomenon, I believe it's necessary for a database as big and important as this one to also provide information about new and upcoming movements. The article will automatically become more substantial as time goes by. *
 * -- Leffe, you can't post at the top ahead of my nomination, so I have move your post here.
 * -- Leffe, you cannot remove other people's comments as you did mine (above) -- it is very bad form to do so and if you continue I will have to complain. I restored my comments -- now leave them alone. You cannot manipulate this comment section to fit your will. Mattisse(talk) 18:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * -- I thought it better not to pollute this discussion with private messages and as I had taken notice of yours it seemed best to remove it. I personally see no reason for leaving private messages here, but if you insist on it, be my guest: I can smile at the irony of discussing the relevance of new Wikipedia entries and at the same time entering the premium of "useless content" here by ourselves ;-) Leffe
 * -- '''Leffe, once again you have messed with the record. You left my signature down here instead of leaving it with my comment. I had to move my signature back to its place. Mattisse(talk) 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment Hoping this phrase becomes notable in the future is not a valid argument to keep it now. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.  If there are no verifiable sources at present, this article should not exist.  An article on this phrase could be recreated once it meets these criteria. Resolute 18:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment on the comment "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" does not apply since that article pertains to Wikipedia articles of a speculative nature. In this case the article isn't speculative at all, the thing being speculated at is whether or not the phrase will attain any greater popularity than at the present time. Taking into account all the fierce reactions on this page I daresay it will. Giannis Kouros No such user; this comment was left by Srose  (talk)  18:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. "Upcoming movements" = speculation.  No one knows if this term will ever become a movement.  Blogs are not reliable sources by Wikipedian standards.  Please see WP:NEO. Srose  (talk)  18:42, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Vanity, cruft, spam. Also has the word "blog" in it. &mdash;ptk✰fgs 19:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as nonsense, WP:NOT, etc. -- Kim van der Linde at venus 19:11, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete like crazy per Ptkfgs. More "ludiculous" than "entermative".  &middot; rodii &middot;  19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete bordering on Speedy delete This is nonsense and a neologism which references a neologism. Burn it and consider BJAODN. Kevin_b_er 20:02, 12 August 2006 (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.