Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Egosurfing (2nd nomination)


 * 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 Keep, main rationale for deletion "It lacks notability, it is a neologism and is OR" is adequately refuted by sourcing. The consensus below seems clear that it should be kept. Although, as it stands it is little more than a dictionary definition and should be expanded or it may be a candidate for tranwiki-ing in the future. Eluchil404 07:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Egosurfing
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

After some contemplation, I have decided to honor this request. Nominator states that he takes issue with "the notability of this page (among other things)". Hopefully he will add a more detailed rationale. Page was nominated for deletion in June, the result of the discussion was keep. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - Apparently this article was speedily deleted as a dictdef in August 2005. /Blaxthos 07:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disclosure - I voted delete in the last AFD. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain with advice of keep -- stare decisis et non quieta movere. /Blaxthos 06:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (Nominator)- I don't agree with the outcome of the previous AfD (which I did not vote in), and I think no consensus would have been the more appropriate decision. I am mainly nominating it for the reasons originally given.  It lacks notability, it is a neologism and is OR.  The term is just too vague, and used too interchangeably, to be encyclopaedic.  I don't think any of the previous reasons were rebuffed, there was just some assertion to the contrary.JJJ999 06:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The term is just too vague, and used too interchangeably, to be encyclopaedic I don't understand this. The concept of egosurfing is perfectly clear to me. Could you elaborate? And I don't see how NEO applies, since, as I showed last time, egosurfing is included at least one mainstream dictionary. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  07:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * And no one explained why the New Scientist article (actually titled "Egosurfing" and comprising several paragraphs) shouldn't count towards notability. (link to preview) Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  07:41, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep - Allthough they are not very good sources, they are sources never the less. There are enough of them in my opiton and therefore should be kept.  Tiddly - Tom  06:38, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * comment- some of the remarks from the last AfD that I don't feel got dealt with- All of these keep votes are kind of surprising. WP:NEO clearly requires multiple sources on the topic of the neologism, not merely sources that reference it. - Chardish 14:24, 10 June 2007, (UTC). I also think it lacks notability.  Maybe it could be renamed as a sub-article, but the opening sentence, which lists about 10 different ways this is defined, highlights the total lack of definitiveness.  I should clarify, the last AfD probably had enough votes to justify a Keep, but I don't feel it was the right decision, or that enough views on it were discussed.  Some of the sources are blogs, others are merely citations (but no online link), which confirm my doubts about the existence of any definitive term for thisJJJ999 06:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * which lists about 10 different ways this is defined No it doesn't. To keep it simple, egosurfing is the practice of searching for yourself online. There are different ways your name might be listed online, but the general concept is clearly defined. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  07:43, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of these might be worth tracking down:, , , Zagalejo ^  ^  ^  07:56, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * put the last one in inverted coma's, and that's 9 hits... nice try though.JJJ999 08:11, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not posting those results to make a point about the number of hits. Browse through the article previews (or full articles, when available). Some of those individual articles should count towards notability. Zagalejo ^ ^  ^  08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep or move to Google (verb). Przepla 12:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Personnally I would prefer the article to be at ego searching, as there are more serious privacy and security issues involved also. The very fact that there are so many synonyms is a strong hint to it notability. I've added a couple of sources also.--victor falk 15:52, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I stand by my statement in the previous AFD to this article. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 19:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. There doesn't seem to be much scope for expansion beyond a definition. Clarityfiend 23:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. As discussed in the previous AfD, it is not a neologism, since it is in mainstream dictionaries, and there are independent publications talking about the concept and using the term. --Itub 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep There seems to be enough information and references for an article. DGG (talk) 23:51, 20 October 2007 (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.