“I tried to appeal, it won’t work,” he writes in an e-mail. The LoHo entry is just a shell of itself, linking to a debate over the debate to delete the entry, in which one of the victors explains:
If the “20 articles” were from reliable sources and documented the name as being in wide use, rather than minor passing mentions and blog postings and one article mentioning this as a neologism, and if anything demonstrated that the term has been influential in anything except naming one agency, then the references would have overruled any number of “delete” votes that didn’t give a valid policy reason.
All right. Everybody back to work!
- Matthew Schuerman