Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buzzwords


 * 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. Neither side's arguments are inherently weak enough to discount the numbers. Argyriou (talk) 18:33, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

List of buzzwords

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

I think we should workshop the idea of leveraging our partnerships source-wise and proactively enact a paradigm shift of this article to from the long tail of Wikipedia going forward to rightshoring at Wiktionary. While it has truthiness it is not mission critical encyclopaedia-wise, but would be a value-added outsource to Wiktionary. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Having eyeballed it on the clickthrough, I'd have to say that dewebifying might be what we should action.--Docg 22:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Buzzkill with extreme prejudice - no objective criteria are possible as to what constitutes a buzzword (and I note that the buzzword article is itself under scrutiny for a variety of issues). Otto4711 (talk) 01:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Beekeep - Objective criteria are pretty clear: V, RS, A. The list, with its properties and attributes of informing the reader with examples in a neutral manner, is not inherently unencyclopedic, does not fail #DIR unless one argues with sophistry, and does not fail #INFO in any way, so it must be shown convincingly that it is not encyclopedic. Can always be merged with parent, but that's an editorial decision outside the scope of this discussion. Note about the quality of the buzzword article is irrelevant; regardless, it would be subjective to have that article list a handful of examples, exclude the rest, and claim to be informative in any substantial way. Note about this being suitable for Wiktionary is irrelevant; Wiktionary, while a endearing sister project, is essentially unrelated in the way me and my bros are unrelated, as content can exist both here and at Wiktionary. –Pomte 03:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Despite the sourcing (mostly to other websites) it's still one person's selection, apparently of commonly heard phrases during the years 2004-2008, with no definitions and no parameters. This page is more of a dust magnet for people to add the latest catchphrase, but today's "buzzword" is tomorrow's cliche.  Encyclopedic articles can be written about, for lack of a better title, buzzwords from a particular year, based on the numerous magazine and newspaper articles that come out every year of words that are "in" and "out".  A lot of the ones on here would probably be considered out of date rather than buzzwords.  This one needs to be downsized (1998) or voted off the island (2003) or given the pink slip (1958).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mandsford (talk • contribs) 03:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * One person's selection? This seems more to have been a collaboration by many editors. Even if this looks like a dust magnet, it is maintained; see Talk:List of buzzwords/Removed content for all the unsourced words excluded from the list. So what if the words go out of date? It's not List of buzzwords in current usage, it's a general list. The historical variations, by your analysis, give this list more value. If you would like to, based on this list, write articles about buzzwords from particular years, go ahead. But those lists not existing yet does not warrant deleting this one, as this is simply an amalgamation of all of them, with parameters implied by policy. Definitions can always be filled in based on the sources. –Pomte 04:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Groan - per nom.   :)    Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment I'd like to make an observation with respect to Wiktionary... a significant source of new material for Wiktionary are lists from Wikipedia. The longer the list is allowed to grow on Wikipedia the more significant the contribution is.  Lists transferred to Wiktionary don't usually grow much.  Once a list is removed from Wikipedia, it doesn't grow here either.  Creativity is being wasted and suppressed.  It's a shame.  These word lists are useful, and Wikipedia attracts the most traffic/talent, so it would be beneficial to both Wiktionary and Wikipedia if Wikipedia allowed development of these lists without having to defend them versus deletion every five minutes.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - the emphasis of AfDs on debating deletion should change to suggesting and finding solutions.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Please restrict discussion to whether this article belongs here. It may certainly be useful or underdeveloped at Wiktionary, but it should be kept because it's not unencyclopedic, not those other reasons. –Pomte 06:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - per Pomte. It's a good start.  Adding the time period in which each buzzword was in fact a buzzword is a good idea.      Perhaps rename the page to List of buzzwords and clichés, and add a lead section that explains the difference between the two.  List the terms by year, and let the reader decide which are still buzzwords and which are clichés.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    06:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * In other words, do a big bunch of original research, and then do some more original research, and then encourage the reader to do more original research on top of all the original research that's already been done. Great plan. Otto4711 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in other words, since the line between the two is blurred, leave it blurred. Any reliable source will do to substantiate that a buzzword was at one time a buzzword.  As long as we know it is one of the two (buzzword or cliché), we don't have to know which one it is.    :)   And the list is only "original research" as long as it is unsourced, which presents a developmental dilemma: such a list is in danger of getting deleted unless it is already sourced, but in order to get the most exposure so that it becomes sourced it needs to be posted.  As far as I can tell, ninety-five percent of Wikipedia is unsourced.  Luckily, articles can't be deleted fast enough to make a big dent.  :-)  Eventually, someone will come along and source it -- give that person, whoever Fate decides it will be, a chance.   Th e Tr ans hu man ist    08:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - Same reasons as raised by Pomte. Additionally, there is an obvious interest in having a pretty well sourced and well maintained list of buzzwords available on Wikipedia for serious reference and for fun. Just check out the frequent addition of unsourced words and phrases to the main buzzword article (which have lessened since this list was created). Yes, that doesn't mean the list should arbitrarily be kept. But at the same time, it does show quite a few users and web visitors think the list is relevant and useful. The context and age concerns are valid, but those aspects can be added to this page. Deletion seems excessive and unwarranted. And sarcastic insinuations about original research are not constructive. Let's try to keep this discussion civil. --Careax (talk) 07:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * By all means, let's keep the discussion civil, by refraining from making veiled accusations of incivility where no incivility exists in an attempt to discredit the comments of others. WP:USEFUL is not a compelling argument for retaining any article. Neither is 'people add junk to the main article so we need someplace to dump it,' also known as better here than there. If material is being inappropriately added to the main article, deal with it in the context of the main article. Don't create or maintain garbage dump articles to keep the main articles "pure." Otto4711 (talk) 07:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, perfectly acceptable list that serves as a tool to navigate the wiki. We have Category:Buzzwords as well and lists and categories are complementary, which in this particular case is shown by the addition of references and non-alphabetical sorting in the list. --Reinoutr (talk) 07:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The existence of a category (WP:WAX) has no bearing on whether this article should remain. Otto4711 (talk) 07:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it does, just like categories, lists can be very useful as a way of organizing and navigating the wiki. BTW, please don't toss around acronyms like that without giving any real argument, I can make any argument for keeping this article I want, as long as I give a decent explanation (which I did). You'll love this one: WP:DOSPAGWYA. --Reinoutr (talk) 11:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep appropriate navigational list. Lists are one way of organizing WP content for users. A good way--Categories seem to me only only an internal supplement.DGG (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of these don't have entries, and probably never will because Wikipedia is not a slang dictionary. That's why I proposed moving it to Wiktionary, like we have with other jargon lists. Guy (Help!) 16:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I do not underestimate the ingenuity of wpedians in writing adequate articles about the others. anyway, there is no requirement for a list to include only blue-linked articles. DGG (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It can be transwikied and still remain here.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist    22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment. I am neutral on this AfD, but I get the feeling that if this list was exactly the same without the sources, there would likely be a fairly strong consensus to delete. Thoughts?--h i s  s p a c e   r e s e a r c h 03:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairly strong? If it were unsourced it would be Speedy Deleted! Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Buzzwords are just to subjective (and large) a category for this list to ever be useful. 06:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mostlyharmless (talk • contribs)
 * Keep They're sourced to legitimate websites, making them inherently notable, so I see no reason to get rid of this. Could do with a bit of cleanup however. Jedibob5 (talk) 23:33, 7 January 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. NO FURTHER EDITS, I REPEAT!!