Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missionary salesman


 * 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. There is consensus that the current incarnation of the article is purely WP:DICDEF. If anyone manages to create a version that is properly encyclopedic and reliably sourced, that could be reconsidered at the time.

Missionary salesman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unremarkable term or concept. See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:16, 3 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to !vote keep per WP:HEY, and like that shortcut this keep is conditional on potential improvements. Otherwise I'd say delete and transwiki to Wiktionary if there isn't already an entry there. Perhaps move to "Missionary selling" if kept. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment : Hey, I added this and another one upset price which was redirected. Both of them were picked from requested article at wiki project on business. The upset price was nominated for speedy deletion but redirected eventually. and I was in fact thinking to create all of the requested articles in that section. You can check it here User:Skysmith/Missing topics about Business and Economics Exploreandwrite (talk) 06:30, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep The concept is remarked upon in numerous books and so the nomination's initial, evidence-free assertion is false. If we see WP:NOTDICTIONARY, we find that it spends much of its time explaining the difference between a short stub and a dictionary.  There's no dictionary content here – no etymology, grammar or focus on a particular word.  So, this is the "perennial source of confusion" – "the mistaken belief that dictionary entries are short, and that short article and dictionary entry are therefore equivalent". Andrew D. (talk) 08:58, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay fine, I shouldn't have referenced WP:NOTDICTIONARY. I should've been more specific and cited WP:NOTNEO (but that felt a bit too WP:BITE-y). If you have sources that I don't have access to, then please feel free to add them to the article. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * There's nothing very new in this topic. The words have been used for centuries and the phrase has been used for at least 90 years.  For example, here's a detailed source from the 1950s, published by the  US Department of Commerce. Andrew D. (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The article covers the subject from a dictionary perspective, not an encyclopedic perspective. We need to look at the development of the concept as well as the word, neither of which happen here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge/redirect to sales. A definition-only article does not need to be stand-alone when another article could easily cover it. Reywas92Talk 20:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 04:56, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. The fact that one of the two sources is a dictionary is pretty good evidence that this is indeed a WP:DICTDEF.  And, the wording is similar enough to the Chron source that I could almost convince myself WP:G12 applies.  If somebody really wants to write an encyclopedia article on this topic, they're free to do so, but the current example isn't worth keeping.  -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 19 September 2019 (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.