Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visitors and residents


 * 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. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Visitors and residents

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I prodded this with "no evidence that it meets the notability criteria for neologisms". It was deleted and then restored. But no attempt has been made to provide evidence that the principle has received any sort of widespread notability. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:40, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the bump. I think of it as a regularly used expression in the field at this point. I will do some research over the next little while and update the entry. Does that work? --Davecormier (talk) 12:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Relisted to give Davecormier another week to find references to establish notability. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JohnCD (talk) 18:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)




 * Weak delete after checking one of the purported sources and not finding either term in it. The main source for this article does have 61 citations according to GScholar. Perhaps this can be merged into some article about digital media use? (Not my field of expertise, so I wouldn't know which article. Q VVERTYVS (hm?) 15:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:43, 14 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete—Agree that the paper is cited, but that in and of itself, is not enough to satisfy notability requirements for the term/concept. I searched two commercial research services (HighBeam and Questia) and couldn't find a single relevant use of the term in any professional literature.  Unless someone can show sources that indicate the notability of the concept itself, it doesn't meet the GNG.  Liv it ⇑ Eh?/What? 17:28, 17 October 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.