Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shocklog


 * 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  d elete. - Mailer Diablo 17:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Shocklog

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

seemingly a violation of Avoid neologisms Cornell Rockey 02:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Merge with Blog, as a "Shocklog" is a type of blog. Flakeloaf 04:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Lacks sources demonstration sufficient use to satisfy WP:NEO. Sources consist of a couple of foreign-language blogs and an on-line Master's thesis. Need published sources complying with WP:RS --Shirahadasha 04:52, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, basically a neologism, and an imprecise one at that. Is Stile Project a "shocklog"?  Lankiveil 05:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Very Strong Delete One of the "sources" cited puts the nail in the coffin on this one!
 * From "Masters of Media:" "To our surprise the term shocklog, a wellknown term in the Netherlands, was nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web. We wanted that to change, so we -The Masters of Media- coined the term on a new English Wikipedia entry."
 * So, they invented it and posted it on Wikipedia in order to coin a new term.zadignose 18:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Can it be speedied? If not, DELETE per Zadignose. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 20:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NEO--Dacium 05:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not Delete The entry is based on two published sources; two MA thesis' which were published by the University of Amsterdam. Just to clear up the confusion with regards to the Masters of Media blog post, they -MofM- did NOT make up this term, they only created an entry in Wikipedia about it! "With 'coining a term to the world" they mean introducing published material via wikipedia to a larger public. The MA thesis' and the videofiles date earlier than the MofM post (and wiki-entry) does. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 83.160.180.211 (talk) 10:48, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Then it's a WP:COI issue. Note that OA of article only contributed to 2 articles (the other being Roy Ascott), and has no other edits apart from this article. -Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 11:10, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I see nothing on the link you cited to indicate it is a conflict of interest. Please recheck your link and see WP:No_original_research. How many articles the OA has edited seem irrelevant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.182.148.34 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete: still a neologism in English, and acknowledged by the authors to be "nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web". -- The Anome 11:13, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, and do not merge anywhere. Blatantly invented word. Flyingtoaster1337 13:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Not Delete This article is well resourced and only being targeted because of US-centric editing. As a regular reader of Wikipedia (yes, I know, our opinions are not as important as those of OCD-disorder-driven editors) I am interested in terms which may not be used in the US but are used elsewhere. In this case, it only takes a bit of Google research (search "shocklog blog") to see this term has a meaning and is in use. Is Wikipedia an American or global project? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 150.182.149.137 (talk) 19:33, 22 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Not Delete Wholehearted agreement. I, too, am a regular reader and believe that neologisms such as these are essential parts of the Wikipedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LordFoom (talk • contribs) 07:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Delete &mdash; put it well: a term "nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web" is not a fit subject for a Wikipedia article ➥the Epopt 17:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete From en wikipedia until notable in en WP:RS sources, regardless of where en is spoken. Ronabop 18:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong Merge to Shock site. A blog is by definition a website, it is intended to shock, and so it is a shock site. That it takes the form of a blog is of no real concern - it differs in no material way besides small changes in format. --Gwern (contribs) 19:23 24 January 2007 (GMT)
 * keep this is a good objective article meeting WP:WEB. But these are a special type of blog, and they are special enough, albeit in a negative way, to be appropriate for an article. The analogy is Shock site, which goes into considerably more detail than is thought appropriate on this article. The article served its purpose--I never knew about them until I read the WP article--and I would say the same here.
 * The statement that "shocklog, a wellknown term in the Netherlands, was nowhere to be found on the rest of the World Wide Web. We wanted that to change, so we -The Masters of Media- coined the term on a new English Wikipedia entry." says the exact opposite of their having invented it. They took a term used in one country and began using it in another. They did not coin the word. If it were in wide use in the Netherlands but not here, it would still deserve an entry in the en WP.DGG 23:11, 25 January 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.