Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diavlog

Diavlog

An unsourced article on a blogging neologism, deletion requested by an anon at my talk page. No independent sources, no evidence of significance. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Video blog after merging any relevant material, SqueakBox 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. No assertion of notability. Seems like a vanity page for blogheads.tv. Pdelongchamp 19:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Just added some more sources (tons more available if needed). This term is used in the same way that vlog is used, and although not in as frequent of use, it is clear from googling that it has sufficiently entered the lexicon to be of importance enough for entry here. Additionally, added list of people who already have wikipedia pages who are frequent diavloggers. (many, if not most, of which use the term themselves either on their blogs or elsewhere) The list is indeed large, and I would not be opposed to paring it down, but I only included a portion of the total that I could have included. (attempting to show the widespread use of the word, even among those who already are important enough to have wikipedia pages) (Cardsplayer4life 20:06, 21 October 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Cardsplayer4life, I think the issue with the article is that it doesn't contain reliable sources that assert its notability. Also, the article contents are not verifiable. I can't read a single line, ask "what reliable source said this?" and be able to find out. For all I know, it could be someone's opinion. Please reference the sources you used to write the article. That will make a big difference. Pdelongchamp 20:45, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I'd say BloggingHeads.tv is notable, and "Diavlog" isn't. Maybe write an article on BH.tv, and make this a redirect to it. ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]