Talk:catvertising

RFV
Nothing on Google Books, Groups or Scholar. It does get some hits on Google News, but it depends how 'durably archived' they are. Websites aren't usually considered durably archived because of linkrot. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Posted three cites I found for the noun form on Citations:catvertising. They're all under a year old, though, so this doesn't seem to meet CFI yet. Astral (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 21:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This is even rarer, and catvertisement listed as a derived term is rarer still. Mglovesfun (talk) 10:35, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've deleted this one as RFV-failed. - -sche (discuss) 08:51, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

RFV 2

 * Previous discussion: Talk:catvertising

Around October 2012 catvertising was deleted for some reason but I can't locate the discussion around this. Can you point me to it? Woz2 (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)


 * OK I found the discussion. I was taking a prolonged wikibreak and I missed it at the time... The term dates back to at least 1999



Can you restore it? Woz2 (talk) 22:37, 6 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi! Sorry it's taken me a bit to get back to you. I've moved the RFV discussion to Talk:catvertising. Was the term in use in books, newspapers, magazines, journals or Usenet posts as far back as 1999? If you can demonstrate that it was (or find a use of it from 2013), that'll satisfy the requirement that citations 'span a year', given that there are already citations from late 2011 and early 2012 here. Be aware that articles which merely mention the word don't count. Also, the article you link to seems to use "catvertisement", which is a different word. - -sche (discuss) 01:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * WP:NORUSH I collected a bunch of cites in my sandbox for a wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising I'm not sure if this meets the WP:NEO threshold... I seems to me it does... The 1999 ref was The Mirror newspaper a RS in the UK. Cheers! Woz2 (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * This isn't Wikipedia of course. The original deletion was correct. Catvertising and catvertisement for a dictionary are two separate words, but for an encyclopedia one topic. We need to cite them separately. My guess is if they don't pass now, they will pass at some point in the future. Mglovesfun (talk) 01:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying wikipedia and wikitionary are the same thing... nor that catvertising and catvertisement are the same thing... just looking for general guidance from the experts here as to whether either or both terms have met the threshold for either or both works... Woz2 (talk) 02:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Some links that support its usage over the years 1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html 2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014 2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/

The section I started earlier didn't come to a resolution, so I'm reopening the request to undelete catvertising and catvertisment here. The words have been in use for more than a year:

1999: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-60242274.html (catvertisment)

2009: http://www.clevelandleader.com/node/9014 (catvertising)

2012: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/marketing/adhocracy/the-wild-wacky-weird-world-of-webby-advertising/article2415040/ (catvertising)

More here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Woz2/catvertising

Can you undelete them?

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 23:07, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

...or give me a pointer as to how to move the ball forward? Woz2 (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to investigate this as fully as I'd like, either to verify that the linked-to citations are durable or to look for more, so I've moved discussion here. If the rest of you feel this term is adequately cited/citable, please do restore the entry. Remember, many an entry has failed because no citations could be found, only to pass a few years later thanks to Google Books' scanning of more libraries. :b - -sche (discuss) 08:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * See above, I couldn't cite it in March 2013 and it's now April 2013. Treat these are normal RFV failed entries and only restore with valid citations (not before). Mglovesfun (talk) 11:22, 7 April 2013 (UTC)
 * On the attestation section it says "this naturally favors media such as Usenet groups, which are durably archived by Google." A lot of the web is durably archived by archive.org so do web pages archived there count as durable? How about YouTube videos? Thanks!


 * http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkOQw96cfyE
 * http://issuu.com/creativemag/docs/november2009 Creative: The Magazine of Promotion and Marketing, ISSN 0737-5883 Vol 41 issue 4 page 80 (print mag)

Woz2 (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * YouTube definitely not durably archived; I have an account there and I can delete my own videos. Mglovesfun (talk) 12:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK How about archive.org? Is stuff there considered durable? Also one more print instance in New York Magazine Nov 28, 2011 edition:

Thanks! Woz2 (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
 * http://nymag.com/nymag/toc/20111128/ Click on the link "Of mice and memes"