Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transaction bible


 * 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. Without sources it isn't something Wiktionary will want. If references can be found, the article and be undeleted for transwikification. WjBscribe 22:57, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Transaction bible

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Dictionary definition, probably a neologism, but it's not in widespread enough use to even figure that out.  Citi Cat   ♫ 19:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wikitonary I think it should be moved to our sister dictionary project. - Presidentman 22:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions.   --Gavin Collins 12:17, 21 August 2007 (UTC)--
 * Delete as proposed by Citicat on grounds that the article's content, which is composed of original research, provides insufficient evidence that this term for a bundle of documents is in widespread use outside the specialist legal firms enganged in Mergers and acquisitions. --Gavin Collins 09:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary The term is commercially well understood by commercial banks and law firms (not just on M&A deals, but on almost all significant transactions), but I cannot imagine that there is enough interesting to say about them to justify an encyclopedia article.  "They contain copies of all documents on a transaction.  They came into use when modern photocopying became prevalent, and modern tendency has been for them to be electronic rather than paper form."  That's about it. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment the term may (technically) fall within the definition of a neologism, but I certainly would not view it as violating Avoid neologisms for the same reason that other commonly understood terms like e-mail, prequel and soccer mom are permissible notwithstanding that they are technically neologisms. I couldn't cite authority for the proposition, but the term has been in common currency at least as long as I have been practising law; I would guess it dates to the 1970s or possible earlier. --Legis (talk - contribs) 14:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Move to Wiktionary per Legis. --Aarktica 20:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The burden of WP:NEO is technically not met, since the article has no references that discuss the usage of the term. No objection to future recreation of an article on this, or a Wiktionary entry, when proper references are located. It's not reasonable to expect the closing admin to find proper references. Note this comment from WP:NEO: To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. EdJohnston 22:22, 26 August 2007 (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.