Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vote-o-rama

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 delete. Robert ^{T | @ | C} 01:17, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote-o-rama

This appears to be a neologism which is not particularly widespread in the stated usage. It also appears to be equally (un)common in a number of other usages. So I doubt me that it is actually notable, and even if it were it's probably a dicdef of a neologism. - Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 17:48, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

• Comment, no vote. The term “vote-o-rama” appears to be a BBS/blog term that has begun to spill over into news reporting. I found 386 Google hits for “vote-o-rama”, of which perhaps half a dozen or so referred to the US Senate. All the rest were references to blogs and discussion boards. Apparently the term has been around for at least a couple of years. If this article is kept, it should, I think, refer to its usage on the web and not primarily to the US Senate. For references to the Senate see [1] [2] [3] [4]. ♠DanMS 22:56, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
• Relisting. - Mailer Diablo 08:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete (for the avoidance of doubt) Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] :: AfD? 09:44, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable enough, more suited to a dictionary. Durova 20:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. *drew 01:14, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

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.