Talk:Webinar

From VfD:

It appears to be a recognised term (435,000 hits on google can't all be wrong), but the question remains, is it really encyclopedic? -- Graham &#9786; | Talk 15:32, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Currently a dicdef, but could be expanded (think history, pros and cons, etc). Keep and cleanup. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 16:50, 2004 Jul 26 (UTC)
 * Listed for deletion less than three hours after creation. Give this stub a chance to grow. (If it's still a stub in 3 months, I'll change my vote.) Rossami 23:46, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: I waited until the last day of voting. There is some discussion in it, now, but it still strikes me as a nonce word.  The currency of the term is questionable to me. Geogre 12:33, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)
 * (weak) Keep, for now. The term is annoying, but that's just too bad for me.  -- WOT 21:01, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

end moved discussion

I find the mostly negative reaction to this entry fascinating. I came across the term in an email, didn't know what it meant, and finding it missing from Wikipedia, googled it. I then realized I had participated in two such seminars (dry as sun struck bone I might add), so I added the term. When I saw the votes for deletion, I tried to flesh it out a little, and believe me, couldn't care less if the entry is killed, just do not understand the criteria by which such things are judged. With all the gobbledygook like the Harry Potter lexicon on Wikipedia, it seems strange. Is it because it is an obviously slick coinage, too commercial, too new, (too boring!) or something else? --Jimaginator

Maybe it should be merged into web conferencing. Nurg 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)

"A webinar is 'live' in the sense that information is conveyed according to an agenda, with a starting and ending time." This seems dubious. Surely 'live' means real-time or synchronous or the like. Nurg 8 July 2005 02:03 (UTC)