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. Whatever doubt there may be about consensus, this is a massive copyvio of http://journals.hil.unb.ca/index.php/jcim/article/view/5666/10661 -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) reply

Internetization (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)

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

Obscure neologism, not notable Bhny ( talk) 20:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 03:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. I'm sure the professor finds it notable, but we need third party citations. There's almost nothing on Google or Google Scholar. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 05:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Weak keep. I see a number of references on Google books, this is used in and cited beyond one author. I am not sure if the term is used consistently enough to merit notability, but I cannot agree with deletion just because it's "obscure" or because there's "almost nothing" (I see usage wide enough to merit better analysis from the nom than just four words). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

I just looked at the Google books results (283) and about half the mentions are in scare quotes ( "Internetization" ), I guess implying that it's not a real word, just "internet" with a clumsy suffix. Anyway 283 results is something, but the usage, as you say, is inconsistent and mostly doesn't seem to derive from the coining by our professor. I'm still in favor of deleting since the article is about a particular coining that isn't notable. Bhny ( talk) 16:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Keep, nice secondary source coverage. — Cirt ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Keep found a lot of information on Google, including a journal entry explaining its relevance [ [1]] Adamh4 ( talk) 18:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Even the journal entry fails to show how this isn't just a neologism that happens to have been picked up by a few users. The references in the article help to show that this is simply a term used by this particular creator and maybe a few others, but not a notable term in itself. There is not sufficient coverage of the term itself to satisfy WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ducknish ( talk • contribs) 22:02, 11 April 2014

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. Google Scholar shows 510 uses of the term. The problem with the article is that in its current form it mentions primarily one scholar when many have utilized/ worked with this term. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 10:07, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The more I look at this article, the less I see there. This is not an encyclopedic article, but rather an essay only marginally on-topic. The topic is, in my opinion, worthy of an article, but this is not it... DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 12:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Some of this is covered under The_Internet#Social_impact; what isn't could be merged there. Those who think the secondary sources are of value could copy and add those to The Internet. The term seems too obscure to meet WP:Notability. Meclee ( talk) 20:08, 22 April 2014 (UTC) reply

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 23 April 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.