Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life caching


 * 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, any merger can be proposed in the normal way (NAC). RMHED  19:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Life caching

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism with only a primary source. Haakon (talk) 17:07, 6 October 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment, there's this and this from The Guardian. There's a bit more stuff from other sources (e.g., , ). Any article should probably be about the concept/trend rather than the neologism - whether there's enough for a stand-alone article I don't know. Guest9999 (talk) 18:55, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Tag for citations, but the concept seems notable enough to warant its own page, if it doesn't have one already by another name (I'd be surprised if some psychologist somewhere hasn't made this into a -philia). Potential for article to be much better than it is; or just to list silly myspace nonphenomena. Declan Clam (talk) 20:16, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Suggest listing on Wiktionary Simonm223 (talk) 21:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Social networking - it does not warrant a separate article. Racepacket (talk) 11:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep good amount of google news, books, and scholar coverage UltraMagnusspeak 21:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Lifelog, or maybe Lifecasting (video stream)—this particular term may be new, but the concept certainly isn't. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Click the Google News search at the top of the AFD, and you can find places that mention it in its context. The Guardian's article seems to prove its notable.   D r e a m Focus  00:26, 14 October 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.