- 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. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Buzzword (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Ain't nothing but a dic def. Mr. Guye (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. With the right sources, it would be easy to construct an encyclopedia article about the development of buzzwords, their usage in business, their effect on creating an insider-outsider dichotomy, etc. The further reading already cites some works that concentrates specifically on buzzwords; I'm not simply imagining that they exist. Nyttend (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:57, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Ignore this per WP:JUSTAVOTE. --Mr. Guye (talk) 03:00, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'm seeing a lot of 'Keep' arguments here. In order to keep this article, the sources that you guys found must be added in there. --Mr. Guye (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be good but not required AfD isn't cleanup. The question is if the topic is notable see WP:NOTE "This page in a nutshell" which says "The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic should have its own article." -- GreenC 17:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Deletion on DICDEF grounds is not the same as notability. There does have to be something more than a dictionary in the article as Wikipedia is not a dictionary (as opposed to notability-related arguments, which merely requires that sources exist). That said, I just tried to find sources about the concept of a buzzword as opposed to merely using it to label this or that term and had a surprisingly hard time. Maybe it would be appropriate to merge to Jargon? --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Jargon without predjudice to recreation if it shows there that it can sustain an article about it as a subject beyond that of a kind of jargon. I did find some good sources. "Beat the Buzzword" by Christine Long in Charter looks good, but I'm accessing it behind a university paywall. It's an article about buzzwords, but it also starts like this: "The use of buzzwords can be annoying - and confusing. What can you do to keep up to date with the latest jargon?" (emphasis mine). --— Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:45, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm okay with merging. I don't agree with keeping. --Mr. Guye (talk) 02:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Take another look, please. I have expanded it and added references; it's not a dicdef any more. --MelanieN (talk) 03:29, 3 February 2015 (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.