Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuccie

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. Soft redirect to wiktionary at editorial discretion Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:19, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yuccie

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

WP:NEO. All sources do is regurgitate the fluff piece of one blogger. No evidence of widespread usage aside, societal significance or importance whatsoever. To cite the policy directly:

“

To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources, such as books and papers, say about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term.

”

99.246.202.164 (talk) 15:55, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:37, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Soft redirect to Wiktionary yuccie. Contrary to WP:Neologism, there don't seem to be independent sources about the word, as distinguished from sources that use the term. Cnilep (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Kurykh. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. You're agreeing with a boilerplate relisting comment? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm assuming Hyperbolick meant to agree with the previous actual !vote, and got the signatures mixed up. @Hyperbolick:, can you clarify? bd2412 T 13:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Meant Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Hyperbolick (talk) 12:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ delete. Reading Wikipedia:Neologism, it seems to me this meets the requirements. Certainly, the Business Insider, Time, and CNN sources cited in the article count as WP:RS, and those are (reasonably) in-depth treatments of the concept. That being said, the article as currently written is a mess. WP:TNT could well apply here. Beyond that, I'm willing to invoke WP:IAR and say we just don't need this article. I'd be happy with the soft redirect to yuccie suggested above. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I did not realize when I initially commented that all four of the references in the article are from June 2015. That's a bad sign, notability-wise, striking my keep. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 11:43, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Roysmith. 92.6.188.30 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially only used in June 2015, except derivatively. A rather ragged concept, that the Money article called "one of 2 dozen other ways to categorize millennials". Although, I did find a single usage from December 2015. It was a clever term that did not catch on, and that never achieved notability. --Bejnar (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Made up words should not get credibility from Wikipedia. d.g. L3X1 (distant write) 23:59, 13 May 2017 (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.