Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Status message (instant messaging)

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 default to keep. Probably would be a good idea to begin a merger discussion on article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Status message (instant messaging)

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

fails WP:GNG and, well. honestly. What's next, an article on add contacts button? Perhaps I should split teacup into teacup handle and body of a teacup while I'm at it. Ironholds (talk) 07:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination seems contradictory. On the one hand, it asserts that the topic is not notable (but provides no evidence). On the other hand, it seems to suggest that the topic is commonplace. In fact, the topic is easy to source as I have just demonstrated. Please see our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep It's certainly not the same as an "add contacts button" or a "teacup handle" article considering the growth of Facebook and Twitter. However, I'm not sure there are enough trustworthy sources one can actually cite to make a good article, but it seems OK for the time being.--fetch comms 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but as Dictionary definition. SYSS Mouse (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Status messages and the "ambient awareness" they generate have received some academic study. While many of the Google scholar results are passing references or patents, some go into greater depth (e.g., [1], [2]). [3] seems to cover status information in some detail, and the work that cites it [4] certainly does. [5] discusses how Twitter developed out of status message culture. Some of the references in this master thesis seem useful. One idea would be to merge this with presence information, though that article is much more abstract. Whether these articles can be merged and, if not, how to divide up information between them is probably better handled on the article talk pages. --Chris Johnson (talk) 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Merge as new section in presence information. I don't consider the presence information article to be too abstract, and the way the nom'd article is written, it could be merged in practically verbatim. GreyWyvern^⚒ 23:24, 6 November 2009 (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.