Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of buzzwords (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 merge to Buzzword. The comments at this discussion are split between keeping the article as-is, and merging/redirecting the article to Buzzword. Numerically, there is a small but significant majority of voters in favor of merging/deleting (about 62% for merge/redirect, and 38% for keep). Of course, AfD is not about simply counting votes, but assessing the strength of arguments on each side. Ultimately, the most convincing argument in the discussion is that this list is an arbitrary collection of words and phrases with very little (if any) inclusion criteria. While some of the words have reliable sources to back them up, and those sources verify the existence of that word or concept, very few of those sources confirm that they are indeed considered "buzzwords", or verify their notability as buzzwords. Therefore, the consensus here is to merge any relevant content to Buzzword, perhaps retaining a very limited set of example buzzwords that can be shown clearly and uncontroversially (via reliable sources) that they are (or have been) considered "buzzwords" by society. When this merge is completed, the list article should be redirected to Buzzword. ‑Scottywong | [verbalize] || 16:28, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

List of buzzwords
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

This page was first nominated for deletion in 2008; there was no consensus back then. I feel like enough time has passed to nominate it again. The main problem with this page, in my opinion, is just how arbitrary and subjective it is. There are no objective criteria for what a buzzword is; the article is just filled with all kinds of terminology and jargon, some of which in some contexts could be buzzwords, sure, but most of which are also just words with well defined meanings. Maybe that wouldn't be a problem if the article gave for every entry a context in which it is a buzzword; but it doesn't, and I don't think it realistically could. Then, there is the lack of sources; many entries are entirely unsourced, and when sources are present, some just describe terms without calling them buzzwords at all, and out of the ones that do, most are generic internet articles with titles like '13 Buzzwords To Stop Using'. And finally, as this article has not seen significant improvement since 2008, I find it hard to believe that it ever will. Lennart97 (talk) 16:27, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone  16:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge into Buzzword - Most of this is either unsourced/trivial stuff, whilst the rest has some reasonable and reliable coverage to it. The latter could be covered in the main Buzzword article. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge the more notable, well-cited examples into Buzzword, likely under "In popular culture". I agree that the article at current is subjective and messy, and trimming back the unsourced and contentious examples while searching for more reliable sources to help back up others (and resolve the singular source and original research issues) can improve quality and warrant the article to stay. However, that may leave the article more barebones than before and still open to mixed additions and removals (as seen in the history already) as time passes. Merging a list of examples into the Buzzwords article could introduce a more solid boundary of notability that in turn will prevent an overflow of examples. --MagPlex (talk · contribs) 17:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:LISTN the blue links confirm the navigational usefulness and the information is useful. Serving our readers. We have no list of jargon but perhaps we should Lightburst (talk) 18:04, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect (without merging) to Buzzword. Inclusion is arbitrary – different sources are going to have different notions of what exactly constitutes a buzzword (for those very few entries that are even sourced at all).  Whether a word even is a buzzword is often context dependent, so this list is currently useless.  There's likewise no actual content to merge here.  Anyone can expand the main article with a handful of examples with actual in-depth coverage.  And then,  such an expansion proves overwhelming to the main article, a list could be spun off. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 18:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge what's worth merging to Buzzword. I agree that of this is trivial and unsourced. Maybe it could aid in navigation, but the same could would be true if it's merged. Maybe more so because the trivial and unsourced items won't be included anymore. Plus, as it is a lot of them really have nothing in common with each other. It's questionable that a lot of them are even buzzwords. For instance things like wellness, or Diversity. It's almost like Wikipedia is taking a position that they are buzzwords by listing as such and it's borderline original research. Since a lot of the linked articles don't describe the "buzzword" as being one. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I've gotten something good out of this already.
 * The page in question has a rather dated feel too as, when I check it for current examples, I'm not finding them – no "use case", "surfacing", "block chain", "offer", "social distancing", &c. To bring this page up-to-date, perhaps we should redirect readers to Meta where they can read examples like "Our strategic direction: Service and Equity ⁂ By 2030, Wikimedia will become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge, and anyone who shares our vision will be able to join us. ..."  Deletion would not be sensible because this is such a notable topic that the vacuum would soon be refilled.
 * Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:01, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep, all the issues cited by nom are fixed through normal editing processes. The subject is undoubtedly notable and no one is suggesting that a helpful list of examples shouldn’t exist. All we’re looking for is the right editor(s) to do the work.  Glee anon 13:46, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, additional sources can include: Buzzwords: A Guide to the Language of Leadership (1974), Management Fads and Buzzwords: Critical-practical Perspectives (2000), and Beyond Buzzwords: Why Some Ideas Fail to Improve Instruction (2017) -- showing the topic is encyclopedic and has staying power in sources over time. Right cite (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to buzzword. I have a really hard time seeing this as a viable stand-alone list. It's not a matter of editing, it's about the possibility of a sensible inclusion criteria/scope. The whole idea of a "buzzword" is too variable/inconsistent/subjective/temporary/context-dependent. We might as well have a list of "jargon" or "slang". It's possible there could be lists with much narrower, clearly-defined scopes (kind of like we have, I think, some lists of localized/domain-specific slang/jargon). It's just too big and too vague. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 16:34, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Places like Consumer Reports  give significant coverage to buzzwords.  Too many referenced entries to merge to another article.  Best to just have it here.   D r e a m Focus  19:59, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Redirect to buzzword. Most of these are highly subjective, poorly sourced, or outdated. A limited selection of those most widely known (synergy probably) should be at the main article but far, far too much of this list is just regular words that someone didn't like in certain contexts and put them in a listicle (but are still widely used and accepted). We need not catalogue such trivia. Reywas92Talk 03:09, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge - I agree with Foxnpichu, this article could be merged, it's a fact that this article does not contain all possible buzzwords, but this alone shouldn't weigh to the point of a complete deletion. Garlicolive (talk) 21:01, 22 October 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.