Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blarming

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. Tone 22:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blarming[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD: non-notable neologism. Searches find this word used in several different senses. In this particular meaning, a technique for using blogging in real-estate marketing, it seems to be more or less a proprietary term, all links leading back to "Mark Taylor of Awesomerates a loan originator in Scottsdale Arizona."

I do not find evidence of the substantial use in independent secondary sources required to establish notability. Per WP:NEO: "Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term... To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources... Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." This one does not even seem to be in wide use yet. JohnCD (talk) 19:47, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism which does not have independently verified notability. The article states that Blarming has become the word of choice when used to describe the technique of using blogs to farm and gain a higher Google ranking . . . without any citation whatsoever. Googling "blarming" mostly turns up pages using "blarming" as an alternate version of the word "blaming" as in "Stop blarming me for that bad neologism, mate!" --Quartermaster (talk) 23:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and also as based essentially on a single incident and a single source. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.95.111 (talk) 07:33, 3 March 2011 (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.