Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile 2.0

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. One month open and only two participants -- there's no great urgency on the part of the community to delete this article. A Train^talk 22:37, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile 2.0

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:WEBCRIT. This phrase is closely related to Web 2.0 and always appears in the same context. The phrase was originally coined by Jaokar and Fish (2006), or by Holmquist (2007). See this and this. There is simply not enough academic papers or other in-depth sources that discuss the phrase. In comparison, we do not have an article for Learning 2.0, but we do have one for Library 2.0.

Redirectifying or merging to Web 2.0 would be satisfactory results too. However, I am not sure if this phrase is notable enough to even be mentioned in that article. Ceosad (talk) 19:20, 12 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 05:21, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:05, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Passes WP:N. An entire 617-page book has been written about the topic, and other sources provide significant coverage. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:47, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete - a member of the subset of WP:NEO that involves throwing 2.0 after a thing and seeing an actual concept sticks. Not seeing it happening here - possibly a redirect to Web 2.0? Artw (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – WP:NEO states, "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted...", but this topic has received significant coverage and usage in reliable sources. As such, this is not actually a "member of the subset of WP:NEO". North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^(c)}} 00:02, 28 April 2017 (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.