Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sofalising

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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 15:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sofalising[edit]

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

Article was deproded following an opposition from a declared COI editor, but original issue still stands. This appears to be a case of WP:NEO with a few scattered usages of these new terms that are being utilized to promote specific clients of the COI editor. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 02:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to social media. Keep The concept of online social network socializing is solid and backed up by plenty of books, so it could have a stand-alone article. There's seem to be an involuntary misunderstanding of the neologism policy by the nominator, which is only for terms used by media in passing and not those with direct coverage; in this case the term "sofalizing" is directly explained by reliable sources, so it passes the keep criteria established by WP:NEO.

Although the article can be kept as is, it currently is quite short so it would be better used as a section in social media to give it proper context. If it expands in the future it could be split again. Diego (talk) 10:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:25, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:27, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Neologisms don't belong either (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I suggested this to the creator of these pages when they were prodded and I still think it is a good idea. The case for a stand-alone article is a bit thin but this term, along with the concept it describes, could be mentioned in the context of social networking or social media. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:37, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The page is about a notable term that has been popularized in the early 2010s. There are various independent sources that establish notability. Tinton5 (talk) 00:29, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Scottywong | communicate _ 15:39, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my not-vote to Keep to help build consensus, both a merge and a keep are valid outcomes for me. Diego (talk) 12:26, 10 April 2012 (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.