Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extrapreneur


 * 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.  Sandstein  08:06, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Extrapreneur

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Looks to me as a desperate attempt to create buzz around this neologism. WP:NEO. The HuffPost article is written by the same person as the one who wrote European Business Review article. The first citation is a non-notable book (?). The guardian article is on another non-sensical tangent. Anyways, wikipedia is not a dictionary - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 04:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep a search throws up 65k GHITs including this and this and this. It claims to have been invented by the editorial team of Dynamique Mag in 2014 as per but I can find references dating back to 1990 here. The term is cited in this book and I even found a description dating from 1986 here. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: To coin a new word, I think we need to be more rigorous. Just because a new word is used by multiple non-notable books/websites/authors doesn't mean we give it an encyclopedia or even a dictionary entry. See WP:NAD, WP:NEO, User:Xyzzyplugh/Articles about words. Check my source analysis below. - hako9 (talk) 18:32, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the fact that an author of a book does not have an article on Wikipedia does not make them non notable just that no one has created an article about them yet or even that books have to be written by notable authors to be considered a reliable source so long as they are not self published as per WP:RSSELF. Dynamique Mag is most definitely not a blog. The PRNewswire article shows that the term is in use and there are even awards for this kind of person. BTW PR Newswire is not a PR company but a very old company that distributes press releases. Why do use the term blogger for the person who wrote the article in Startupmindset as it clearly says she is a staff writer here and why do you call it unreliable? I agree the article needs improving and to cite more sources to show it is a commonly used term and what they say about the term but this is not a reason for deletion but a reason for improvement. --Dom from Paris (talk) 09:31, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Absolutely right, that a book/author doesn't need to have an article on en.wiki to be considered notable. But let's understand what we are talking here. We are talking about an encyclopedia entry for a word. To coin a new word, it is implied that it has to be used by multiple mainstream reliable popular media and also have legitimacy given to it by lexicographers. To give weight to my argument, also consider, we don't have standalone articles about words like Retweet or words like Stan (Stan was added to Oxford English dictionary btw). If we have a standalone article, it will likely always be a stub, or it will become a cesspool of original research, like what the websites you listed have done. Last thing, your argument that the word has been used since the 90's lends weight to my argument actually. If the word was used so long ago, why aren't we seeing, even slight usage now, in mainstream media? I am arguing so hard because we can't allow wiki to become a vehicle for inventing and legitimising neologism. This isn't Urban Dictionary. - hako9 (talk) 20:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually totally agree with you about wikipedia not being an urban dictionary or just a dictionary. Retweet is maybe not the best parallel because it means nothing more than to...retweet. There is no concept behind it, it is a simple action. There seems to be sufficient evidence that Extrapreneur is a genuine concept with people writing articles and chapters in books about it. Anyway I think there are enough sources out there to show ot is a notable concept and enough to make an useful article. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree and see how this pans out. Cheers Dom from Paris (talk) 07:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:06, 20 August 2020 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 Talk Work 14:40, 28 August 2020 (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.