Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bumvertising (2nd nomination)


 * 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   no consensus. and not likely for one to emerge with strong reasoning on both sides. TravellingCari 04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Bumvertising
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Main reason for deletion: Wikipedia's Notability Guidelines, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by Notability: "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'd love to hear other opinions on this. Thanks. Pip (talk) 05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't even understand the deletion nom, except that first sentence, and part of the next, which, if I may paraphrase, seems to say "it should be deleted because it isn't humanitarian, socially accepted, and highly disrepectful". It's been sourced, multiple times, to multiple sources. Notability seems to be well-established by the first deletion nom. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Keep since it has been reliably sourced, and since this term and Benjamin Rogovy certainly get hits. I don't understand the nomination either.  If the basis for deleting is that this exploitative practice is not humanitarian or socially accepted, or that it's highly disrespectful to the homeless... then I can only say that I see these as reasons that this article should exist.  Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
 * What's not to understand? I can explain anything you need me to. The most important argument is the notability guidelines. I even quoted the most relevant passage from the policy right there. Pip (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, I think that the larger debate unfolding around the ethical implications moves this from transient news coverage surrounding a single event to something more significant. Mintrick (talk) 4:31, 28 September 2008 (EST)
 * I don't care about the ethical implications with respect to it's encyclopedic legitimacy. My point is that it doesn't meet notability guidelines, as I quoted above. Pip (talk) 03:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Good point. Upon reexamination, it seems that all the coverage is focused around a short burst of news reports. Absent something that indicates this is more far-reaching than a one-time publicity stunt that got some coverage, I don't think it meets the requirements. I looked around, trying to find something that indicated this was an issue facing the homeless community, but couldn't find anything. If something like that materialized, I'd change my mind. Mintrick (talk) 14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I definitely agree with you on that, to the effect that if more on that issue was found, I'd see why it would carry more weight. I would still suggest a re-write to cover the idea of the concept, instead of the specific term 'Bumvertising', even so. I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. Also: Are you saying you are changing your vote, or just removing your keep vote? (Not to press the subject haha) Pip (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think the topic is neat, and I'd like to see more general coverage. To clarify, I am removing my keep vote. I guess I default to neutral.Mintrick (talk) 05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying. :) Pip (talk) 08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Nomination was too long, didn't read. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Great, makes me feel so good about the level of concern here ^^ I'll shorten it, I suppose. Pip (talk) 03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, but in all seriousness, the idea of down-and-out people wearing a sandwich board for advertising has been around for a long time. I remember a Leave it to Beaver episode about it.  Perhaps the article could be expanded and retitled. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Certainly a possibility. Thing is, this article is referencing a particular person's idea to capitalize on the idea, to the point of creating a business about it... Also, did I make my nomination description more concise and understandable for you? I didn't mean to be as absurdly verbose as I was. Pip (talk) 05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nom is fine now. Squidfryerchef (talk) 03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool. Thanks for the feedback. Pip (talk) 04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism. All of the google hits I reviewed (although there are many) point to the one incident that coined the term. Per WP:Neologism, a new term does not belong in WP unless there are there are reliable sources about the term, not just articles about the incident that coined the term. In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish a term! - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete As per nom and ¢Spender1983. Proxy User (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete essentially a neologism of something which, as noted above isn't really all that new and can't really be said to have caught on to any significant degree. Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sourcing on the article indicates this so-called "neologism" has been used and acknowledged by at least two major news sources (3 if you count The Daily Show). Ergo it is no longer a neologism. Plenty of sources to establish notability of both the term and the concept. 23skidoo (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That doesn't change the fact that it is a neologism. -- neon white talk 16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * KEEP - per WP:NEO : "...and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic.", multiple news sources qualify. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response per "Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." The only references are from Aug 2005! Pip (Talk to me!) 04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A Reliable Source does not stop being reliable simply because it is older than you would like. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - You seem to be selectively quoting WP:NEO. The proper quote would be "when secondary sources (about the term) become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic." The editorial insert is based on the first part of this section in WP:NEO which says "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." So no matter how reliable the news source is (NY Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle), if the article centers on Mr. Rogovy and his "coining" of the term then the article does not qualify as a secondary source for Bumvertising. For a neologism to gain acceptance, there should be articles about the term. In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish notability for a neologism. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There is, and it is cited in the Article. I am willing to accept it. Exit2DOS2000   •T•C•  21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This ABC news article is clearly about Mr. Rogovy's coining of the term. The leading paragraph says "he calls it 'bum-vertising'." So how do you say it is about the term? I would concur that this is clearly a reliable secondary source to prove that Mr. Rogovy has created the neologism. It makes no ground whatsoever in proving that the term has moved from protologism to either neologism or to acceptance and use in the advertising industry. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Response A very good point you make. Thank you for bringing that to the table - you filled in good gaps that were in my argument. I appreciate it. Pip (Talk to me!) 04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Disturbing to say the least, but the reliable sources provided establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question - Which reliable sources establish notability of the term itself? All I see is reliable sources that report a news event where one person refers to his actions by giving it the name bumvertising? How does that make this term notable? If you were to call a local ad agency and ask for a marketing plan that included "bumvertising", what reaction would you get? Would they even know what it is? - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as per nom and unless it's re-written in a more balanced fashion. As it is, it seems like a shameless advert. It was originally created by 16:22, 14 August 2005 SchmuckyTheCat (Talk | contribs) (creation). Admittedly, it has gotten some press, but not very much. Admittedly, it also seems to be a phenomenon. Perhaps more discussion here will clarify this issue this time around. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2008 (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.