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. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:23, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glamourbomb[edit]

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

Non-notable concept/original research. This article, despite existing since 2005, has almost zero reliable sources. I searched and could find almost nothing: only a handful of mentions in books, mostly unrelated to this use, and nothing to suggest it meets the notability guidelines. The article has been tagged for notability issues since 2010 without any significant improvement. Robofish (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Seems to be popular in blogs and other self-published sources, but I don't see any notability stemming from reliable sources. I don't think the article can ever be verifiable. It could also be merged into chaos magic, I suppose. There are also elements of culture jamming and postmodernism, but I don't really see how it could easily be merged into those articles. If someone wanted to try, they're welcome to do so. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:36, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have run some searches, can't find any published sources, however this seems to be a real phrase discussed and used. It gets 167,000 hits on google so clearly its a real term worthy of note.Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS. I suggest going through some of those search results. They are unconnected to the usage here. Also see WP:NEO: "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. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic, or use the term within other articles." IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources describing it from an independent perspective. Apparently a term with several meanings, it's a good candidate for Wiktionary. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:08, 23 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable. Looks like wikipedia is driving this usage rather than there reverse, see [1]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:37, 26 September 2013 (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.