Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FrieNDA


 * 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. SarahStierch (talk) 23:24, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

FrieNDA
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Portmanteau neologism with no evidence of notability or traction. Contested PROD. Richfife (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * keep: this is a term heard much in new media, lean startup, and new product development conference settings; I can source more information on this if required. Also, though, if the feeling is very strong that this does not belong, then I will seek to add an entry in the wiktionary instead. Greyskinnedboy  Talk  23:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Where? I'm not finding much of anything online.  The urbandictionary listing has gotten 24 votes (two of them down) in the last 6 years.  The standard for Wikipedia articles is verifiability, not truth. - Richfife (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge into Gentleman's agreement as an example of modern use. (Alternately, delete as neologism.) The term certainly looks like a neologism to me: all the references that I can find seem to stem from this blog post; it feels almost like a walled garden. A handful of sources might exist, but they only attest to personal use, rather than broader acceptance of the term, consistent with a finding of neologism. The original blog post is dated to October 2008; for having existed four and a half years, there's remarkably little out there on it. It's already referenced in Gentleman's Agreement, but perhaps the term might justify creation of an additional subsection on modern use: while "FrieNDA" (and permutations) might be a neologism, the sources indicate that the term was coined as a result of the phenomenon of making certain oral agreements. While the term might not be suitable for inclusion, the attestation for a modern use of the gentleman's agreement would be. Ourai  тʃс 06:09, 26 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to Wiktionary, with appropriate trimming. I doubt there's enough to say about it to make a truly encyclopedic article. &mdash;Darkwind (talk) 02:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar   &middot;   &middot;  16:25, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  17:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Horrid acronym/pun with no good sources. Warden (talk) 11:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:08, 15 June 2013 (UTC)




 * Delete neologism with poor sources, not notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. 069952497aComments and complaintsStuff I've done 20:54, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as per the above - it seems to be a neologism without the level of sourcing we'd need for a standalone article. No objection to a mention at Gentleman's agreement, if there is consensus for it. UltraExactZZ Said~ Did 19:23, 20 June 2013 (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.