Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedcast (2nd nomination)

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 merge to Webcast. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 14:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wedcast

Non-encyclopedic article; it is basically a dicdef or borderline neologism and the notability remains dubious. The page survived an AfD discussion 18 months ago but has not been worked on since then. It is not linked to by any mainspace articles. Paddles ^T_C 10:07, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 22:46, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article as it currently stands is a dictionary definition of a neologism that does not meet Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion. If there is anything notable about the topic, a webcast of a specific type of event, then it can be covered at the webcast article. Thryduulf (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to webcast. Plausible search term, but there's not enough to say to sustain an entire article. Powers ^T 13:25, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Webcast. The sources seem reliable and on-point, but this is a neologism. With so little content the topic doesn't seem to warrant a stand-alone article. Cnilep (talk) 17:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge(/redirect) to Webcast per WP:NOTDIC: stubs that cannot possibly be expanded beyond perpetual stub status should be either renamed, merged, or refactored into articles with wider scope. The news coverage seems to consist of various human interest stories and doesn't really offer any extensive information about the phenomenon. — Rankiri (talk) 20:09, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I stand firm on this one. I don't think it needs merged at all. Lack of internet coverage. (Isn't that ironic) Lack of 3rd party coverage. Lack of coverage overall. And holy freezing turdsickle, I can't believe I'm editing again. :) Thanks to whoever it was that posted on my page. Undead Warrior (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge and redirect to Webcast. There are strong sources (NYTimes, Time Magazine, Daily News) to support a claim to notability for this topic. If it's can't be expanded, then it should be merged. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:17, 29 July 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.