Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was keep. howcheng {chat} 00:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bankable star

This article was deleted after a previous AFD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankable star). The article was edited during the original AFD discussion and a DRV debate started on December 12 had three votes to "undelete". Relisting now. No vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep. Use of the term has been verified. --King of All the Franks 13:27, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as before. The article is still a Non-idiomatic phrase; the meaning is exactly what one would expect from the meanings of "bankable" and "star (per Cryptic's previous comment) plus a load of subjective cruft. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 13:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
    • This was primarily an argument against a transwiki to Wiktionary. —Cryptic (talk) 15:24, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Acknowledged. You did, however, describe extremely accurately, I thought, why the dicdef part of this article is of no practical value. The rest is cruft :-) Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:36, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism.--nixie 14:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Not a neologism; the term is in fact used as an example of the use of the word "bankable" by several dictionaries [1]. Keep now that it's actually an encyclopedia article about bankable stars, as opposed to a one-line dictdef (as it was when it was first nominated) or a one-line dictdef with poll results tacked on (as it was when it was deleted). —Cryptic (talk) 15:23, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Common term in entertainment industry. Useful article. Xoloz 15:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep This article has citations and is sufficiently encyclopedic to avoid deletion. Endomion 16:19, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable enough to me, I'm not in the Hollywood business but I've heard of this. --Cyde Weys votetalk 18:59, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep - I'd say this term is notable enough to warrant an article. Pogoman 08:04, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep, encyclopedic, not just an arbitrary combination of words. and learn how to use google groups advanced search to spot first use on usenet (rec.arts.tv.soaps - Jun 24 1992)!. How old does a neologism have to be before it goes off your radar? --Marvin147 04:34, 5 January 2006 (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.