Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spending diet


 * 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. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 02:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Spending diet

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unsourced article about a neologism inspired by a newspaper article chronicling a North Carolina family's efforts to reduce their household expenditures. Or something. No evidence the subject satisfies meets the general notability guideline. Moreover, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, even for catch phrases that have gained wide currency, which this one hasn't. -- Rrburke (talk) 15:12, 12 April 2011 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, the phrase "spending diet" gets one hell of a lot of gnews and google hits. To me, there is no doubt that the word passes WP:NEO, hands down.  Does it pass Wikipedia is not a dictionary?  Well, that is a tricky one.  It is a commonly used phrase, but that appears to be it.  The current article wants to give credit to some family for "popularizing" the phrase, and would appear to be bunk, as the phrase is very, very old (first mention: Baltimore Sun in 1975).  If kept, you would have to gut the current article and find some way to "verify" the phrase, but in the end, I think we still have a DICDEF issue.  Weak Delete would be my !vote.  Dennis Brown (talk) 15:47, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Move or merge. I can't see how it is different from money diet or personal finance. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete The current content is non-notable (and the sole reference seems more like a "spending fast" than a diet). The phrase is in moderately common use, but all we can really write is a definition. And the definition is obvious from the words. Dingo1729 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2011 (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.