Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Bloggernacle

This is a joke, right? Any chance "a good administrator will...transparently explain how the decision was reached"? . A Google Test presently reports nearly 20,000 hits for the term 'Bloggernacle', and as per said article "Q. What is the minimum number of matches you should see if a term is not made up? A. A couple hundred perhaps!". In addition, as has been pointed out, the New York Times used this term in an actual article; certainly, this brings the term 'bloggernacle' beyond the accusation of a non-notable neologism. Finally, does this mean St._Blog%27s_Parish will be up for deletion soon as well? -- Kmsiever 6 July 2005 02:22 (UTC)

FCYTravis's vote for deletion (and subsequent deletion of the page) seems to have been based on "sockpuppet limit exceeded." I assume this was because there were several unsigned votes for keeping. However, the definition of sockpuppet is one person voting under multiple accounts, and I fairly sure that's not what happened here. The unsigned votes were probably the result of people who had not edited in Wikipedia before voting in response to this blog entry. If you look at the IP addresses posted by User:Allen3 and check their geographical locations, you'll find the following: That hardly seems evidence of sockpuppetry. -- EricJamesStone 6 July 2005 17:22 (UTC)
 * 208.27.203.128 - Riverside, CA
 * 69.140.41.228 - Silver Spring, MD
 * 66.238.118.146 - Huntington Beach, CA
 * 70.149.73.144 - Miami, FL