Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sharenting

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:50, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sharenting[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICTIONARY, respectfully. Tutelary (talk) 11:15, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - While it has neologism-like elements due to being a relatively recently-coined term, at this time it's also a topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources, thus passing WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. Source examples include:

"The pros and cons of 'sharenting'". The Guardian.
"Could you be over sharenting?". News.com.au.
"Sharenting: Is it harmful to share the details of the children’s lives through social media?". Gulf News.
"The Facebook-Free Baby". The Wall Street Journal.
"Is 'oversharenting' a big deal?". ABC News.

– NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article could stand to be beefed up, but I see extensive coverage. Meets notability. Bali88 (talk) 17:45, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's unintuitive, but this really is a notable neologism used by reliable sources. I find it difficult to believe that adult, professional journalists would use such a stupid word, but they do. I even found a Flemish newspaper that uses the term! With such international acceptance, I think this is a clear keep. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I've expanded the article. It's not a featured article, but I think it makes a much better case for notability now. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:30, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.