Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web 2.0 memes

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. - Mailer Diablo 06:49, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Web 2.0 memes

Blatantly unnecessary page which consists rntirely of material that would be better off in Web 2.0, original research and a rather shakey definition of a neologism Artw 01:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• Page was recently moved from its original location (Marketing 2.0) with no arguments given on talk page. I think it should be restored to its original location. Term is valid, several blogs and websites already use the Wikipedia definition as reference. Web 2.0 is mainly a technical term while this term refers to new concepts in advertising and mass marketing.--Matthieupinard 09:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • no arguments given on talk page — A reason was given in the edit summary for the move.

    several blogs and websites already use the Wikipedia definition as reference — They are wrong to do so. An encyclopaedia is not a primary source. See Wikipedia:Researching with Wikipedia. That some people are using Wikipedia as a primary source does not counter the argument that something is original research. Indeed, it strengthens that argument. Uncle G 11:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

• I haven't decided if this can be cleaned up, but I think it should NOT be merged into Web 2.0 due to the original research claims. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - This article makes a lot of claims that I don't think are verifiable. There might be some reliable sources for some of the info, but there aren't any in the article, and I can't find any through some quick Googling. Wickethewok 14:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I'm leaning Delete as this is in no way reliably sourced or verified... and it is a neologism as well. With better sourcing though, I suppose this could very well be a keep... I can't find any such sourcing though. If the consensus is keep, this content should be moved back to Marketing 2.0 and this namespace should still be deleted (i.e. no redirect). Equating "Marketing 2.0" with "Web 2.0 memes" is unsupported original research and a bit daft in my opinion.--Isotope23 16:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
• I would suggest that it is inappropriate to AfD this article in its current state. It was originally titled Marketing 2.0 up to this version before User:Sj attempted to re-organise it by renaming it to the current title as part of a "larger scheme" to merge with other articles of a similar nature. Apparently Sj left this unfinished, thus leaving this article in an inappropriate title with some references removed in subsequent edits. Whether the original article is appropriate for Wikipedia is another question for another day (in another AfD), but in the meantime this AfD would only be looking into the wrong content in the wrong title. --Pkchan 16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree. Most references were removed recently and not replaced with newer ones. My point is, the term is widely used among marketing professionals (I am one) and there should be a clear definition of the term which we were getting close to before the recent edits to the page. Here are some examples of articles, pages and blogs using the term. Some of these references could be added to the page. --Matthieupinard 17:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
    • A first definition of the concept
    • A second definition of the concept
    • A third definition of the concept (includes link to whitepaper)
    • A fourth definition of the concept
    • Discussion about the definition
    • A Website dedicated to the concept.
    • A forum about the concept
    • A link to a white paper suggesting a definition
    • Topic and its definition were also widely discussed at a recent Mesh Conference
• Delete. Buzz marketing? They already make $100,000 more than most--do we really have to have their lexicon on wikipedia?-Kmaguir1 09:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. "ather shakey fefinition of a neologism", remwmbering WP:NEO and WP:NOT a dictionary. Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 04:50, 1 September 2006 (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.