- 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 keep. Cirt (talk) 19:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Twitter Power (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Doesn't meet the criteria for books, specifically significant coverage in multiple third-party sources. The only independant reference is a passing mention and a quote by the author in a story about Twitter. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - nomination refers only to the current state of the article. A quick search reveals several usable sources including: CNET mention, Review, News.com.au coverage, in depth review, review, more coverage, etc. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per ThaddeusB B.Rossow talkcontr 17:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 22:33, 22 September 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.