Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenemy


 * 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. StarM 01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Frenemy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Frenemy is an uncommon neologism which does not describe a novel concept. Ringbang (talk) 05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep — new terms are okay, as long as they are reliably sourced, in which this one is. MuZemike  ( talk ) 08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - The sources provided give enough notability to the word for it to be appropriate along notable guidelines, but I wonder if it should be included at all, as it is really just a definition. It doesn't really matter if any one of us subjectively thinks the concept of the neologism is "novel," but we should instead think about whether its history/creation/usage warrant an encyclopedic entry because of some impact it has made on society. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this one, Neutral.SMSpivey (talk) 10:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The word has been used by multiple independent people and the article goes beyond a mere definition, it mentions occurances and events related to the term. - Mgm|(talk) 10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Hi everyone, please consult the Wikipedia policy pages Avoid neologisms and No original research, and then read the article more closely. The article consists of original research, with citations that only list individuals who have used the term. Per Wikipedia policy, qualifying a neologism is not about establishing broad usage (although this article would still fail to make that case), but rather to document a word based on reliable, scholarly sources. Qualifying secondary sources include scholarly works that are about the term, not samples of usage. This is a good practice to endorse because it helps to ensure an accurate, thoughtful definition with a solid foundation, rather than one that's largely speculative and subjective. In this particular case, an example of a qualifying source might be a book or paper about applied game theory or corporate politics, possibly written by a sociologist. After you remove the original research, unverified claims, and the lists of examples of usage, what remains in the article is a single reference: a 2007 magazine article by Liz Ryan&mdash;which also doesn't qualify since it's an editorial! This word may qualify for Wikipedia inclusion someday, but for now it doesn't. Ringbang (talk) 20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Completely agree with Ringbang's rationale given above. Popular culture usage of the word does not establish the word's notability for inclusion. The sections on People and Commercial relationships are more or less OR. This term belongs to Wiktionary, where it already exists. LeaveSleaves talk 17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources. Just because something may be an editorial does not mean it is not a reliable source—editorials in major publications go through the same fact-checking procedures as other articles. Liz Ryan's Businessweek article is clearly significant coverage. But you want scholarly sources? "Sleeping with the 'Frenemy'; "Vascularization as a Potential Enemy in Valvular Heart Disease" ("A frenemy is an enemy disguised as a friend. This term is a recent addition to popular lexicon, but the concept is as old as history."); "The business strategy/corporate social responsibility 'mash-up' ("Neologisms like 'Coopetition' (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1997) and 'Frenemy' came into use to attempt to describe these new realities"). DHowell (talk) 05:22, 23 December 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.