Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Connected Revolution


 * 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 delete.  Sandstein  18:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Connected Revolution

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Buzzword (WP:NEO) for new media marketing and social media "gurus". It's used in a variety of ways to talk about topics we already cover at, variously, Information Age, Hyperconnectivity, interconnectivity, cloud computing, cloud computing issues, ubiquitous computing, Internet of Things, web 2.0, Digital Revolution, and so on (and, yes, some of those have problems as well). Most of the sources cited don't even use the term "connected revolution", which makes for a concerning WP:SYNTH issue, too. Despite the capital R, a redirect will likely make sense, but there are many possible targets. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:49, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * <small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 20:50, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Although I have to say the current article seems sourced and acceptable, I suppose we can delete for now and wait for a better article. I would like to see how this nomination plays though, SwisterTwister   talk  05:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge and redirect by that name into the named articles - eventually as a separate section in Information revolution (it's not just / even less about information than about a revolution of connectivity). Enough sources discuss the concept to warrant an article, however it seems there's no common term used for it with "connected revolution" being mainly used by social media advisers & marketing experts and "revolution of connectivity" or "connectivity revolution" (etc.) being more on point. I see the nominator's point and agree but I also I think Wikipedia would miss out on some important aspects of the current historic development when losing some of that info and term. Another option would be to rewrite parts of the article and to move it to a more neutral name as described in WP:NEO. --Fixuture (talk) 20:15, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 03:47, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. I agree with the nominator. None of the sources discuss this as an overarching concept. This is original research. mikeman67 (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. the sources clearly show it being used in a variety of different senses DGG ( talk ) 17:48, 15 October 2015 (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.