Deletion of Disemvoweling

Comment: I think it's great that the first thing you came to for research was Wikipedia, but the term still doesn't have any ''veryifyable sources''. Blogs are ''not'' concidered to be . Why? Because anyone can have a blog. The term is used in the fourming community only, so we can't say it's a well known term
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability (WP:V)

Comment: First of all to all here 1. #Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 2. #Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, ie ''Instruction manuals''. Thats what this is. 3. The only references are to blogs, and for the hundredth time, blogs are not . It's nice people come here for ''all'' their information, but Wikipedia isn't here to act as the know-all of everything
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT||WP:NOT||WP:V)

Comment: per nom. Smells strongly of  and , plus violates 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR||WP:NEO||WP:V)

Comment: Checking again, there is no  that this definition is used '''at all'''.  However, Risks Digest is (almost) a , although it's a personal digest, and primarily sourced from Usenet.  But that one (and the jargon file) replace the vowels by "splat" characters ("*" or "?").  Still, there's no , even under , for its use as a moderation tool.  So, '''this''' definition has no support.  Still '''delete''', but without prejudice toward an article on the use described as quasi-censorship of individual words (N*z*) and in TXT SPK. &mdash
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:WEB)