Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bacn (electronic)


 * 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 due to non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. — TKD::Talk 04:51, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Bacn (electronic)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Personally I never heard of it and the sources aren't that great either WP:NFT  1 redrun  Talk 07:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO and lack of reliable sources. Dbromage  [Talk]  07:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. What Dbromage said ... richi 09:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I found this a useful information when I tried to look it up after hearing it in a podcastmalaquias 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument. Dbromage  [Talk]  12:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Wikipedia is full of things i've never heard of but i don't think they should be deleted on that critira alone.WP:NEO seems to suggest that Articles on neologisms are sometimes appropriate. But I concide that this is a new term and that it may fall rapidly out of use and may not be appropriate according to WP:NEO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 11:33, August 24, 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I guess I didn't make it quite clear which of the above was my point. Obviously there are lots of things on Wikipedia I don't know. But in this case it's a subject I think I'm somewhat familiar with this and the aparrent lack of reliable sources lead me to belive it was either made up or non-notable (as of yet). Admitedly I didn't think of WP:NEO when I nominated it but I guess that's what it comes down to. It's a neologism that hasn't been esablished (yet) [and by all chances never will] and shouldn't be included.  1 redrun  Talk 12:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO and WP:N  Tiddly Tom  12:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I'm listening to the Bryant Park Project (an upcoming NPR newscast) about Bacn right now, and I looked it up on Wikipedia in hopes of getting more info.  It's also in Wired Magazine so I think it passes WP:N and WP:VER.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by TexasDex (talk • contribs) 14:00, August 24, 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete, blog-only neologism, something made up in a podcast one day, and essentially promotional for the blog. If this catches on in a year or two (possible, but doubtful -- we used to call it "fram", friendly spam, and see how well that developed), then it will be possible to have an article. --Dhartung | Talk 16:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete The following is taken from the Washington Post blog item linked on the page: "The term was actually coined just this past weekend at PodCamp Pittsburgh 2. " That's dated Aug. 21, 2007. I think we can wait to see if the term takes. If and when it happens, a page can be created. MarkinBoston 16:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
 * mmm, bacon - damn diet... er, delete as neologism. If it's ... not quite a week old, it sure as heck ain't notable yet. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. Besides, any bac'n that's been sitting out since 21 August needs binned. ☺ --Ssbohio 00:04, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism. -- Vary | Talk 20:12, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep See today's artice in the Toronto Star:. If a term gains attention in such a mainstream audience, perhaps it has already made a cultural impact that should be documented. The article in the star could also be used for more reliable secondary sources. --75.153.117.26 18:16, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep/Merge - I was the one that recently (unknowingly) reintroduced the term on the "...may be:"/Redirect page. If bacn is deemed not article worthy, maybe it can keep its one line definition on that page and/or give it its own entry inside the spam page (merge). Tbone2001 06:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think it should be merged with Spam. Tiddly - Tom  11:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Erik Warmelink 13:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Granted, it's clearly a neologism, but I think the large press attention it's received (NPR, NY Times, Washington Post, etc.) makes the story around the word noteworthy. schark 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Satisfies WP:NEO "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. " The articles such as the one from the Chicago Tribune and the Toronto Star do just that. The article about the origin of the term and about the phenomenon it describes makes it more than a dictionary definition. (Besides I have wanted a term for stuff I once requested or agreed to that still comes to my mailbox and clutters it until I delete it unread). Edison 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - term getting much attention and press. -- Fuzheado | Talk 14:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - very recent neologism with no obvious usage outside "trendmongers" (i.e. people who just want to spread a neologism for its coolness, including the nine-days'-wonder media sources that will probably never use it again). 86.131.94.67 20:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep/Merge - I think this belongs on the Spam page, rather than warranting its own. It's received enough attention to be included there. Tkrpata 20:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, Wired Magazine and NPR coverage convinced me. Italiavivi 19:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, It was mentioned in The Times and wanted to find out more. Useful article. 84.9.147.9 15:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, In addition to the above pro arguments, the term has gained wide coverage in the specialist marketing community/media in the context of the best practices associated with transactional messages and emails. Golf fan 07:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, While it is admittedly a neologism and thus runs afoul of WP:NEO, the term is already in surprisingly wide usage both online and now in print and other media. On a practical level, if the article is deleted, it will only a matter of time before some well-meaning person says "Hey, there's no article in Wikipedia on bacn, I'll create one!", in which case, this entire discussion will occur again. Rightly or wrongly, people are turning to Wikipedia as a source for information about current topics and expect to find things like 'bacn' here.  My 2 cents. Dyork 17:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I looked it up here after reading about it at NPR. With all the secondary media sources, I think it is acceptable under WP:NEO as long as it stays sourced (as it is now). --Ginkgo100talk 14:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.