Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyborgLog
it doesn't have to mention that word, it is the same topic. You wouldn't expect academics to use slang. If you think it is an inappropriate title etc then suggest a renaming. The point is that this article is not about a silly word it is about the topic of "glogging" (god that's a lame name, Stephen Mann should be ashamed). You can't claim it fails  and  with the shear amount of peer reviewed literature about the article. What this article could do more with would be an academic bibliography of glogging related articles but NONE of them have to mention the word glog or cyborglog. Side note did you check the academic literature? I did: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=glogging&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search. There are mentions of glogging in academic literature (most from Stephen Mann) and these appeared in peer reviewed workshops. Thus there are multiple non-trivial real world mentions of '''Glogging''' thus it passes  and , and since  and  are satisfied so is criteria 1 of 
— User:Quirex, 19:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:V||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:RS||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:WEB (Wikipedia:Verifiability)