Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commentweeting


 * 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 was deleted per WP:SNOW. Only keep vote was from a single-purpose account. 78 ghits? Oh, boy! r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 15:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Commentweeting

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested Prod - prod tag was removed by an IP single purpose account after adding wikilinks to the article, but those additions don't add any evidence of notability. Original prod reason was "non-notable neologism", and I agree. Only 12 unique Ghits, no hits at all in a Gnews search means no evidence of notability. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:21, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  —Dawn Bard (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This comment was just posted on the talk page by "Do not delete Commentweeting! It is simply a basic way to get updates on sporting events when you have no access to a radio or TV! It's very convenient and is going to take off!"  I just wanted to make sure it was included here; my own opinion has not changed. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete As original PROD'er. This is a neologism, plain and simple, with no coverage in reliable sources. TN X Man  16:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've heard several people do this sort of thing at notable events, but they all just called it Twitter Updates like everyone else. Until the neologism becomes the de-facto term for this, or at least until we can find an RS for it as a neologism, delete as unsourced and unverifiable. Arakunem Talk 18:27, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as an unsourced, non-notable neologism. If sources can be found, then merge with Twitter. The comment that it "is going to take off" seems to concede the lack of current notability. Cnilep (talk) 18:52, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, as I don't even find this to fall into a neologism; 57 results on google currently, not a single one of which is anything noteworthy. I'm sure that in the span of five minutes I could invent a neologism that would appear to have more weight than this. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 19:31, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO; for the IP who pleads, above, that it "is going to take off!": see WP:UPANDCOMING. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could a passing admin please snow delete this article? Thanks.— S Marshall   Talk / Cont  22:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep!It is up to 78 hits on Google already...wait a week and watch it grow. To reply to the comment that stated "many people do this but they all just called it "twitter updates": that is the broad way of defining anything updated on Twitter.  "Commentweeting" is the specific act of updating sporting events".
 * Comment: Considering that at least one company seems to currently be trying to "trademark" the term, I would suspect that a lot of this is involvement in viral marketing of an odd sort. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 03:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:19, 6 June 2009 (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.