Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second dot-com bubble


 * 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. While the article has sources, they are blogs and editorials. Could be redirected to a section of main dotcom bubble article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2009 (UTC)'''

Second dot-com bubble

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Article based on a two year old neologism, that predicts future events that never happened. Entire article is based on two year old speculation from a few editorial writers. Ridernyc (talk) 00:07, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - article (as at this writing) is founded on three independent reliable sources, is well sourced throughout and describes a notable concept. (I could be talked into a Merge though if someone found an appropriate target.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:40, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's kept it's needs to be totally rewritten. Ridernyc (talk) 08:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete when did this happen? editorial writers aren't enough to make an article an encyclopedic topic. only a few here Cynof  G  avuf 07:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This reads like an analysis, with points for and against the fact of the existance of the subject. I recommned that the sources be folded into Dot-com bubble, and a small section be added that talks about the idea of a second such bubble - sort of like how a movie article will have a small section talking about a (possible) sequel. We can't very well talk about a subject if independent sources contradict each other about whether the subject exists. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 15:14, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article is notable. I admit, it really ought to be shifted to the past tense, and it has a really long, unnecessary list at the end, but it is still a notable topic, cited in 3 independent, reliable sources.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by S8333631 (talk • contribs) 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Another interesting article. However I don't think WP can have an article on something that may or may not exist (Okay UFO and Bigfoot are different).  In this case real people's lives and careers are affected. I'd like to see the information placed somewhere else, but I'm not sure how to do it. Maybe it could be snuck in at the end of the first Dot-com bubble article, in a section titled "changes in the market since the bubble" or something like that. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:21, 30 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.