Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social netvetting

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. Merge or move can be discussed at the article's talk page. Shimeru (talk) 01:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Social netvetting

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

wp:neo TheDude2006 (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)}}[reply]

Speedy delete; tag added. — Timneu22 · talk 16:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:G1 was declined: not nonsense - there is meaningful content. Should have tagged with WP:G3. — Rankiri (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Why wasn't it just changed and deleted, then? — Timneu22 · talk 21:16, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, I wasn't the one who declined it. — Rankiri (talk) 21:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Neutral/Rename^{(per Fences and windows)}. WP:NFT, WP:NEO. Unsourced. Zero Google results. — Rankiri (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy delete~~ I swear, unsourced neologisms need to be included in CSD criteria so we don't have to go through these longer processes. ALI ^{nom nom} 17:58, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to vetting or move to another, more widely used term per sources found by User:Fences and windows. Nice job. ALI ^{nom nom} 11:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete.~~ Notable concept, but we're just not in the business of giving names to concepts. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:30, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Vetting per Cybercobra. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO. Joal Beal (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly a non-notable term. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:14, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename per comments made by User:Fences and windows below. --SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 21:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wait a second. We don't have an article on this topic, which is a notable one. The title is poor and the content almost non-existent, but don't we build on rubbish stubs rather than deleting them? It's been called "Cyber-vetting" or "Facebook vetting" and another neutral term might be "Social network vetting" or "Online vetting", so we can change the title thus negating WP:NEO. It has been written about in the media a lot, e.g. [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]. We can at least add a section about this to Vetting or Background check. An stub like this can flag up a gap in our coverage and therefore should be welcomed and improved on rather than being deleted. Wikipedia would have died stillborn if this kind of rush to deletion had existed from the beginning, and no wonder it's stopped expanding so quickly when we stamp on stubs like this instead of improving them. Babies and bathwater. Fences&Windows 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've made a stab at writing this, merciless editing welcome. I don't favour a merge, but it'd not be a disaster. I don't think the lack of a nice agreed on term for a topic should decide whether we have an article on it, but "cyber-vetting" seems to have caught on. That or "online vetting" would be fine, as they also capture the nuance that this practice of vetting online is not wholly restricted to social networking sites. Fences&Windows 23:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I note that "cyber-vetting" is only used by 2 of the sources you listed. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:07, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, that's true, but if you do a search for the term "cyber-vetting" you'll other reliable sources using it. The first instance I can find was in The Spectator in May 2007,[17] and the term is used by legal professionals:[18]. Btw, there's a book due out in December by Routledge of internet vetting:[19] Fences&Windows 14:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 21:32, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per the sources found above. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 21:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. per above, although, rename it, as suggested. David V Houston (talk) 22:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Vetting since there doesn't appear to be an agreed-upon term for this yet. --Cybercobra (talk) 22:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to withdraw this AFD. I see the sources and now agree that this term is notable. TheDude2006 (talk) 19:00, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, an AFD can't be closed as withdrawn once other people !voted to delete. Regards So Why 13:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable per above. Hopefully F&W's great work demonstrated the importance of WP:BEFORE to those who rushed to !vote "delete". Regards So Why 13:59, 8 May 2010 (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.