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 of the debate was merge/redirect all to Roadway blogging. --Ezeu 19:20, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeway blogging, Vehicular blogging[edit]

Two articles, with associated linkspam, about non-notable/neologistic concept. The creator's only source is the FreewayBlogger website, which I suspect is his, with an underlying political POV being pushed. Delete. · rodii · 15:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yikes, just noticed he also made Car blogging and Truck blogging at the same time. I'm tired. · rodii · 15:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Redirect to Graffiti. ForbiddenWord 15:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep . The article itself does not push a POV. The site appears notable w/ ~40,000 Google hits. :) Dlohcierekim 16:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article isn't about the site, it's about "Freeway blogging" the concept, which has exactly one known practitioner. Let's say I decide to sit in a tree and yell about fascism (or communism, let's be fair here), and call it "Tree blogging." Can I start articles here about Tree blogging, Shrub blogging, Plant blogging and Forest blogging (the latter two of which just say "see Tree Blogging")? · rodii · 16:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment well if its just one guy, he's had remarkable success at propagating the idea and the term. See [1] for thousands of sources that use the term. This seems like a notable concept and term and one that people will come to Wikipedia to find out more about. The article needs to be expanded and sourced, but it looks notable to me. Gwernol 16:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep "Freeway Blogging" per Dlohcierekim. Gwernol 16:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
• Merge freeway, vehicular, car, and truck blogging into one and keep it. --Ed (Edgar181) 17:26, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep "Freeway Blogging" per Dlohcierekim and gwernol, and delete the others (or merge if there is no consensus for delete) --BrownHairedGirl 18:24, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : I created both pages and I am open to merging freeway and vehicular blogging into one page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Panem (talk • contribs) .
• Comment from panem: I have performed the merge.

• Comment. Please stop adding confusion to this issue. We now have five articles in this cluster: Car blogging and Truck blogging have been turned into redirects to Vehicular blogging; Freeway blogging and Vehicular blogging just say "Please go to Freeway and vehicular blogging"; Freeway and vehicular blogging contains an awkward merge of those two articles plus a section on "Billboard modification." If the consensus here is to merge (OK by me), where to merge it to? · rodii · 18:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And now one more, see Roadway blogging. Accurizer 14:36, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all blogcruft to a single blogging genres article. Just zis Guy you know? 21:14, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all of them into blogging. M1ss1ontomars2k4 23:49, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge : should all be in the blogging subject (not notable). Lincher 18:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but not to blog. This is a neologistic use of the term "blogging", which is a is a web-based publication. As presented, they are free speech or political signs. The location in which they are placed does not seem to define what they are. Accurizer 14:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can find no reliable source whatsoever for any of these. If one emerges, then merge them per JzG. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2006 (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.