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. There is consensus that the current incarnation of the article is purely
WP:DICDEF. If anyone manages to create a version that is properly encyclopedic and reliably sourced, that could be reconsidered at the time.
I'm tempted to !vote keep per
WP:HEY, and like that shortcut this keep is conditional on potential improvements. Otherwise I'd say delete and transwiki to Wiktionary if there isn't already an entry there. Perhaps move to "Missionary selling" if kept. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment : Hey, I added this and another one
upset price which was redirected. Both of them were picked from requested article at wiki project on business. The upset price was nominated for speedy deletion but redirected eventually. and I was in fact thinking to create all of the requested articles in that section. You can check it here
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Business and EconomicsExploreandwrite (
talk) 06:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The concept is remarked upon in numerous books and so the nomination's initial, evidence-free assertion is false. If we see
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we find that it spends much of its time explaining the difference between a short
stub and a dictionary. There's no dictionary content here – no etymology, grammar or focus on a particular word. So, this is the "perennial source of confusion" – "the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent".
Andrew D. (
talk) 08:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: Okay fine, I shouldn't have referenced
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited
WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too
WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have access to, then please feel free to add them to the article. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
There's nothing very new in this topic. The words have been used for centuries and the phrase has been used for at least 90 years. For example, here's a
detailed source from the 1950s, published by the US Department of Commerce.
Andrew D. (
talk) 22:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The article covers the subject from a dictionary perspective, not an encyclopedic perspective. We need to look at the development of the concept as well as the word, neither of which happen here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
sales. A definition-only article does not need to be stand-alone when another article could easily cover it.
Reywas92Talk 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk) 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that one of the two sources is a dictionary is pretty good evidence that this is indeed a
WP:DICTDEF. And, the wording is similar enough to the Chron source that I could almost convince myself
WP:G12 applies. If somebody really wants to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, they're free to do so, but the current example isn't worth keeping. --
RoySmith(talk) 13:08, 19 September 2019 (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.
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. There is consensus that the current incarnation of the article is purely
WP:DICDEF. If anyone manages to create a version that is properly encyclopedic and reliably sourced, that could be reconsidered at the time.
I'm tempted to !vote keep per
WP:HEY, and like that shortcut this keep is conditional on potential improvements. Otherwise I'd say delete and transwiki to Wiktionary if there isn't already an entry there. Perhaps move to "Missionary selling" if kept. –
John M Wolfson (
talk •
contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment : Hey, I added this and another one
upset price which was redirected. Both of them were picked from requested article at wiki project on business. The upset price was nominated for speedy deletion but redirected eventually. and I was in fact thinking to create all of the requested articles in that section. You can check it here
User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Business and EconomicsExploreandwrite (
talk) 06:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep The concept is remarked upon in numerous books and so the nomination's initial, evidence-free assertion is false. If we see
WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we find that it spends much of its time explaining the difference between a short
stub and a dictionary. There's no dictionary content here – no etymology, grammar or focus on a particular word. So, this is the "perennial source of confusion" – "the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent".
Andrew D. (
talk) 08:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Andrew Davidson: Okay fine, I shouldn't have referenced
WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited
WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too
WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have access to, then please feel free to add them to the article. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
There's nothing very new in this topic. The words have been used for centuries and the phrase has been used for at least 90 years. For example, here's a
detailed source from the 1950s, published by the US Department of Commerce.
Andrew D. (
talk) 22:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete The article covers the subject from a dictionary perspective, not an encyclopedic perspective. We need to look at the development of the concept as well as the word, neither of which happen here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge/redirect to
sales. A definition-only article does not need to be stand-alone when another article could easily cover it.
Reywas92Talk 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Ad Orientem (
talk) 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. The fact that one of the two sources is a dictionary is pretty good evidence that this is indeed a
WP:DICTDEF. And, the wording is similar enough to the Chron source that I could almost convince myself
WP:G12 applies. If somebody really wants to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, they're free to do so, but the current example isn't worth keeping. --
RoySmith(talk) 13:08, 19 September 2019 (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.