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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:32, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Purple squirrel[edit]

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

This article is confused about what it wants to be. The first half is about "purple squirrel" as an employment term, without a reliable source in sight, and the second is about a slapdash number of sightings of actual purple squirrels, none of which are relevant beyond momentary curiosity. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ten, now that i removed the slapdash number of sightings of actual purple squirrels, and we added reliable sources, can you change your !vote and close this AFD? Zeddocument (talk) 13:00, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:49, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article was originally about the employment term. An anon IP editor added the content about the animal in 2012. • Gene93k (talk) 22:54, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It's really not a bad article, just has some problems. If there was more information, I think we could split this into two different articles, but there's a lot of improvement needed before that can happen. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Supernerd11: Improve it with what? The sources that don't exist? That's a major issue with me: people who say "keep, it just needs fixing up" but provide no proof that any sources exist to improve it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@TenPoundHammer: Please don't take this the wrong way, but did you even check the sources? With the exception of UrbanDictionary (which is blocked on the computer I'm currently at), they all seem to check out. By improve, I meant expand it, maybe with some information other than sightings. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 18:28, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG KEEP This article can easily be fixed. The concept is widely known, and quoted normally by career coaches. i am here because as a job seeker in the DC area, I have heard this term over and over and over again independently. I am closing this AFD keep. Thank you. Zeddocument (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeddocument: Fix it up with what? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:39, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Zeddocument: What field are you in that this term is so common?Septagram (talk) 22:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sources were rather easy to find for both topics, and both topics pass WP:GNG. Examples include, but are not limited to:

Animal

Employment term

– After this AfD has concluded, perhaps a split should occur, with separate articles for each term. Cheers, Northamerica1000^(talk) 12:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's a rare but useful term and for that reason should be kept for average people who occasionally hear this term used in employment circles. Now if I were an employer or HR, who coined the term, I would want this article buried because it shows a depressing current trend in employment practices in field like engineering or other STEM fields and how they view interviewees. If I were a job seeker I would want to know if that term was connected to an employment field I was entering and requires a Purple Squirrel as the minimum qualification for entry level positions. Either as a separate article or not.Septagram (talk) 22:12, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term's notability seems to be adequately demonstrated by the sources given. However, I think the article was more interesting when it included the content about actual purple squirrels, and it's a shame that was removed. I think the article could perhaps cover both of these topics, since they are somewhat related, or, better still, a separate article could be created for the animal sightings. Everyking (talk) 08:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This page seems like it would be more suitable as an entry on Wiktionary than here. The fact that Urban Dictionary is one of the major sources only underscores my point. Msdec24 (talk) 03:48, 20 February 2014 (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.