Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadway blogging


 * 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. Appears to be a neologism. El_C 03:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Roadway blogging


This article is clearly useless. It is a page probably written by the creator of the "roadway blogging" idea and was added here to further his agenda. This "roadway blog" theory is only apparently used by one blog and is therefor obscure. Wikipedia is not a place where anyone can stick up whatever they feel is worth knowing about.--Amanduhh 03:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment The original AfD discussion is at Articles for deletion/Freeway blogging. Accurizer 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The article is definitely just advertising for the concept. --Aaron 04:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, possibly include a sentence in the parent blog article, but non-notable as an independent concept. riana_dzasta 04:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Why don't we invent our own blogging idea - Delete blogging where we blog about deleting non-notable neologisms like this and other junk? This one has a grand total of 5 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, non-notable neologism, junk, junk, junk. Wikipedia is not your encyclopedia where you can write anything nonsensical. Ter e nce Ong 05:57, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - per above neogolism/etc, perhaps a slight mention in Blog but definitely does not deserve a separate article, no thanks --timecop 08:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologisim, and the refrences do not appear to be very relaible. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 14:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, as I found many referances to it on Google. Sharkface217 20:22, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Google references do not mean it is an automatic keep. Zezima has millions of Google references, yet it doesn't warrant its own article. --Fred McGarry 11:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete - another worthless blog-related neologisim. blog-related. - Femmina 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism that fails WP:V. Fairsing 23:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This is an article about an activity, not a person. Sean Bonner 07:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - This entry is crucial in preserving the cultural importance of major blogs. (67.67.88.27 01:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)).
 * Comment -- this account appears to be a voting sock-puppet. Jmax- 02:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - Somebody keeps removing the AfD notice in the article. I'm in a revert war with this trouble-maker and they have just been reported. --Oakshade 01:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - I believe Wikipedia in this case created the term. I was hard pressed to find the term "roadway blogging" on other sites not having mirrored Wikipedia. -- Northgrove 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. WP:NEO and WP:NOR. Grouse 02:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - A notable form of public expression. I think "blogging" is actually the wrong term, but oh well.  About the few ghits cited above, "Freeway Blogging" (the name that was merged into this article) comes up with over 17,000 non-wiki ghits.  I know the fervor of users that have an extreme bias against blogs in general.  Flame away!  --Oakshade 02:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above.  digital  _  me   02:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Completely and utterly non-notable. --lesalle 03:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete There are no citations and it therefore is inappropriate for wikipedia. Butholer 04:14, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * — Possible single purpose account: Butholer (talk • contribs) has made or no other contributions outside this topic or their own user page.
 * Delete and enough reasons have already been stated. This page is pure nonsense. I also do not appreciate that the front page of Digg implies that anyone who votes delete on this article is a troll. - Abscissa 05:07, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete term does not Google, it's obviously a protologism. Guy (Help!) 09:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - no reliable sources. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequately referenced. WMMartin 17:41, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Jeff 18:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * KEEP --LifeStar 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as a neologism. I don't think the google test is entirely helpful for blog related articles because blogs will inevitably fill the results due to heavy cross-linking. ISI Web of Knowledge, LexisNexis, and EBSCOhost all return exactly zero results on this phrase, variant phrases, and variants of "freeway blogging". For comparison's sake, each database turns up multiple non-trivial references about Moblogs. shotwell 21:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete non notable Modesty84 00:29, 6 December 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.