Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoozing

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 per sources identified in this debate. Davewild (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stoozing

Stoozing (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Original research, neologism, unreferenced. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, non-notable neologism as described in WP:NEO. Lankiveil (talk) 10:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC).
  • Delete. The complete lack of references (even from the purported birthplace forums) is a good indication of non-notability, and it reads like an essay. Chris Cunningham (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 15:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 16:33, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep article may be unsourced but stoozing is certainly a widely recognized term, it gets over 238,000 ghits [1]. RMHED (talk) 00:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment google hits don't equal notability. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 02:16, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • But, equally, a "per nom" argument that has clearly had zero effort put into it to double check it independently, which is what you are supposed to be doing, does not have any weight. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Multiple people independent of its inventor have documented this activity in depth, as a mere 1 minute's looking at the results of a Google search reveals. (John Stepek. "How 'stoozing' could bring down the global economy", MoneyWeek, Digital Look Ltd, 2006-02-27.  ""You can avoid paying interest altogether"", The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group Limited, 2004-09-11. ) The PNC is satisfied.

  Although RMHED's argument is based upon not looking for actual sources that document the subject, so it seems are the arguments of all of the other editors above, as well.

  I encourage all editors to read Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage. Unverifiability means that no sources exist, not that no sources are cited. You are supposed to look for sources yourselves. An article is only unverifiable if you don't find any, having looked. Moreover, having multiple editors doing so is the safeguard that is intended to be incorporated into the AFD process. You don't help to improve the encyclopaedia by not doing the research at AFD and instead simply parroting the nominator. Neither are you being of any help at all to AFD. Uncle G (talk) 02:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Nominator's comment: My bad. I admit that i didn't bother looking for sources, because the whole outset looked like a blatant neologism - a silly-sounding nickname from a community website that became an investment strategy. However, the sources that you offered look convincing enough to me. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

  Would that they had been added to the article in lieu of being presented here in the form of a lecture. Chris Cunningham (talk) 14:02, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep per RMHED, and Uncle G. I've worked on the article and can confirm the term is more widely used... but I don't have any statistics, so... -xC- 18:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly a fairly new phenomenon for which no other non-neologistic term exists. Well documented usage in the public domain. JFW | T@lk 21:13, 27 December 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.