- 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. Rlendog (talk) 16:09, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Social engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Fails WP:NEO Madcoverboy (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - As a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:22, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as having insufficiently detailed coverage in independent third party sources. If such sources are found and integrated, feel free to ping my talk page. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:18, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 11:19, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete — If this term becomes ubiquitous, then we can consider its inclusion. But right now, it is nothing more than a neologism. Master&Expert (Talk) 14:02, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Legis (talk - contribs) 08:11, 12 December 2011 (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.