Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tabnapping

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 redirect to Tabnabbing. JForget 00:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabnapping

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

Non-notable, essentially unreferenced neologism. Also reads more like a "how-to" guide. The history also says something I don't understand when the article was de-prodded: "this is an article by firefox`s creative lead". This may indicate a COI. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 13:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IF THIS IS TO BE DELETED FOR NEOGLISM. then there is an duplication of this article in a different name tabnabbing (this is tabnapping).Imgoutham (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
when is the due date for deletion, or the article is considered for approval —Preceding unsigned comment added by Imgoutham (talk • contribs) 13:05, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
my view on this is a new internet term to specify the various phishing methadologies.User talk:imgoutham —Preceding undated comment added 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC).[reply]
I am supporting deletion, but I would like to say that I have made a few improvements to the article, but the references provide no examples or proof that it even happens. Chevy monte carlo 14:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence that the term is widely used. Also no explanation of how it exploits tabbed browsers rather than non-tabbed ones. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:04, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously, people, one Google News search is all it took for me to find sources. Yes, the article needs to be majorly improved, but the sources are available. Passes GNG. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 07:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Merge with tabnabbing. --TorriTorri(^talk/_contribs) 20:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- it's the same as Tabnabbing.Gz33 (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gz33's point is great - there's already an article on Wikipedia on the same subject which is much better. It needs to be deleted. Chevy monte carlo 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabnabbing. It's a very possible misspelling. Peridon (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm in agreement with a redirect. I was unaware of that article. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:38, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tabnabbing, per Peridon's rationale--Pink Bull 19:43, 4 June 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.