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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot commercial

[edit]

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

Unable to find sufficient coverage to satisfy notability guidelines. Possibly falls foul of WP:NEO. Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC) Andrew³²⁷ 13:47, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

delete Once I got the Department of Transportation out of the picture, I got some usage of a term, but nothing that suggested anything like agreement on what the phrase means. The best hit was a thirteen year old Tufts U student paper hit that talked about dot-com ads. I saw no hit that used this specific definition. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:17, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Whatever this is, it's not sourced at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2013 (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.