Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blog house

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. Majorly (hot!) 20:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blog house[edit]

Mostly nonsense and self-promotion; term seems to mostly appear on the web with respect to how silly this article is Jonathan Williams 02:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as original research. It also fails the "n year test" for any n>3. YechielMan 02:57, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete eh sounds like people on forums complaining about music that gets too mainstream for their tastes? I dunno. Article is a bit incoherent and leaves out details... such as anyone other than forum posters/bloggers using this term. Published sources would be helpful here. --W.marsh 03:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nature of the term makes it difficult to guarantee that there are no reliable sources- googling turns up a lot of unrelated stuff. If there is a real argument for notability, the article creator is invited to add the sources to demonstrate it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as no reliable sources are provided asserting its notability. --ElKevbo 22:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Blog House Must be Saved, the real problem is that this term was created by the internet for the internet. In all reality this is a joke term used to describe a certian type of house listener not really a type of house music. For the people creating this type of Electro they take it really serious and are probably offened by the term. But for people who listen to House music this has turned into a semi slang word to talk about people who will not be listening to this music in a year. Its kinda a toss up if you want to keep it around on wiki, its kinda like New Rave. But I would say go for it. holler at me on them emails to discuss this. I have been working on some more text too, [email protected]casikroth 9:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
- Comment It's not the text that's the problems, it's the lack of citations or references. I would vote conditional keep, since there is some distinct material on the internet, but the entry needs to be more encyclopedic, esp. with respect to citations which would determine notability. Fishhead64 17:51, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment No endorsement either way, but you might want to remove your email address from this page unless you like junk mail. Yamaguchi先生 01:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is incoherent and there are not any verifiable sources. Just linking to blogs and bands does not an article make.THE evil fluffyface 15:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has been fixed up and should now comply with Wikipedia standards. 12:27, 16 April 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.118.253.54 (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. I'm sorry, but the changes don't make me change my vote. Almost none of those sources actually use the term 'blog house,' let alone discuss the genre in any meaningful detail. It sounds like it's a style that may be becoming more significant, but for now, I don't see the sources verifying the widespread use of this term. -FisherQueen (Talk) 17:59, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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.