Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bleisure travel

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 keep - in the sense of "don't delete". Both this article, and the proposed merge target Business travel are flawed pieces that could certainly benefit from attention in the form of both writing and sourcing - but there's certainly no consensus to delete this article. Either both articles can be usefully improved to cover the distinct topics, or a combined article could be produced with this becoming a merged redirect - but as far as AfD is concerned, there is clearly not a consensus that deletion is the correct path here. ~ mazca ^talk 22:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bleisure travel

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

seems to be a WP:NEOLOGISM SeraphWiki (talk) 14:23, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SeraphWiki (talk) 14:45, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Albeit a relatively new term, it has use in a variety of reliable sources in news [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6], corporate websites [7] [8] and even some hits in scholarly articles about the term itself and its definitions and characteristics per G scholar search. I don't think the Wikipedia article is an example of NEOLOGISM: it has growing usage already -- Whats new?^(talk) 06:12, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Business travel — this article is a stub, its not like merging will overburden the main article. The term may have usage but NEOLOGISM, if you follow it links to WP:NOTDICTIONARY — there's no need for a stand alone article about a recent slang word for "sightseeing while on a business trip" SeraphWiki (talk) 06:29, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Business travel is astonishingly bad as an article. The "Bleisure" article is largely promotional. A merge would have to be very selective. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:19, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:19, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The term certainly has sufficient usage, some given by Whats new? (whose oppose I assume means keep, here) but there's plenty more with some minimal searching - this lets it avoid WP:NEOLOGISM. Next up is WP:NOTDICTIONARY - there is plenty of content that covers non-dictionary areas, the article is far beyond (scope-wise, at least) a dictionary, so I feel it avoids that. Next up is the blended bit of WP:PROMO and the merge suggestion. The article certainly is promotional, but it clearly isn't purely promo, and NPOV issues are supposed to be dealt with by editing, not deletion. If we had some excellent business travel article then I might be in two minds about merging, but doing it here seems to help no-one. Hence, keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:23, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.