Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mashup (digital)


 * 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   merge to Mashup (web application hybrid) .  MBisanz  talk 02:53, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Mashup (digital)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Despite the supposed references, this article is unreferenced, and it reads like a personal account and original research. RNealK (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2013 January 16.  Snotbot   t &bull; c &raquo;  01:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Seems like original research and duplication of several existing topics. The article does not seem adequately supported by its references. - MrX 02:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 12:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG - coverage by Berman et al. and IBM's study establish the term "digital mashup" as its usual meaning of a combination of third-party content. This use was widespread for a while at magazines and design websites. The article could be in better shape, but AfD is not for cleanup Screw that, merge as a section of Mashup (web application hybrid) that better covers the main concept. There may be a secondary topic meaning any digital mixture of content, but it can be kept with better context there per WP:PAGEDECIDE. Diego (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 15:05, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 02:51, 31 January 2013 (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.