Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Walmarting

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 no consensus. Mailer Diablo 00:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Walmarting

[edit] Vote

Neologism. The references are a U.S. congressman's campaign website, an article about baseball stadiums, a blog, and a comment on a blog. The articles don't share a common meaning for the term, indicating that it is unstable. No idea who Bob K and D.M. are. Rhobite 00:53, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn neologism. Royboycrashfan 01:17, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete POV fork neologism. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Which article(s) does this article fork?--Esprit15d 17:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Blogs do not count as verifiable sources. --Hetar 01:36, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. Death Eater Dan (Muahaha) 02:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom -Jcbarr 03:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism. -- Samir ∙ ^T_C 07:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. - TRDriver 08:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not a dictionary of dubious slang. ProhibitOnions 12:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - Per Hetar --lightdarkness ^(talk) 14:37, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep, but improve. Actually, this article's inclusion is consistent with the other articles of its type, Disneyfication (2005) and McDonaldization (started in 2003). When I Googled "walmarting", I got 664 hits, just now. Unlike your experience that it is only used in blogs, I found it used by:
• a newspaper columnist quoted on an art site [1]
• a union newsletter [2]
• a proposed national ad campaign [3]
• an anthropology professor's course description [4]
• an AFL0CIO magazine article [5]
• the transcript of a radio program [6]
• an industrial news website [7]
• a pr group that works with non-profits [8]

I could go on, but I have no more time. In all of these, the usage was consistent. If you want to delete the article (which would be inconsistent with the other two articles, and I'd bet others, the term is common enough to deserve mention in the article with the debate about Wal-Mart at the very least. I find it curious that I'm the first to weigh in as a "keep". Is there a campaign going on?==Beth Wellington 00:39, 1 March 2006 (EST) (Signed manually on 3 March with information from history page. Apologies, Max1, that it being late at night, I forgot to do so at the time.)

• Keep/(transwiki + mege) This makes a reasonable short article. Arguably it's more appropriate to Wiktionary, but could be refatored into a wictionary and section for Walmart. Rich Farmbrough 10:51 2 March 2006 (UTC).
• Keep & Improve Beatdown 03:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & Improve The large part of the user who has, unfortunately, not signed has convinced me that it's important to keep the article while some improvement has to be done, probably with the inclusion of the links the unsigned user has given. I sure hope the many entrances saying "delete" aren't part of a campaign steered by WalMart (the first of them seem to have come within minutes, that looks, to me, slightly suspicious). Also, while "Walmarting" is a neologism that's how many of the words we are using today got started. The word describes a certain way to deal with suppliers which could be - and probably is already - copied by other companies. --Maxl 14:33, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. I initially nominated this article for deletion when it was about two minutes old, but then I googled the term, and see that it does have varied usage. And also, to be honest, I've used the term myself. It is new, but I really feel like Walmart is becoming eponymous a la "google" and the article is worth keeping.--Esprit15d 17:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --rogerd 19:55, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. It may not be an expression used by many right now, but I think its usage will grow when more people become aware of the supermarkets' role in the globalization. For instance, during the last few months the British newspapers (and TV) have started reporting about the growing concern in the UK for the role supermarkets have in both killing local shops and squeezing suppliers around the world - and they frequently credit WalMart for having introduced the current supplier squeezing, making the Brits very aware of WalMart (which was virtually unheard of earlier, although WalMart owns one of the big UK chains, Asda). Thomas Blomberg 23:24, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per above. Jonathan235 21:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion, having already voted

For those of you who have voted and are interested in editing the article, especially those who voted to keep, but improve, I've taken a stab at making it more wiki-esque. Comments welcome.-- Beth Wellington 18:21, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think this article should be deleted, because it describes an unstable neologism. However it's good that you've improved it. Rhobite 18:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Rhobite. Do you and I differ only on whether the term is unstable? As I noted in the external links, there is at least usage going back to 1999. That's seven years. Multiple definitions do not make a word unstable. Look at "Kafkaesque", for example. Interestingly, when I looked up Walmarting for a definition just now, here is the first reference I found "Walmart is not available in the general English dictionary and thesaurus. Try: Wikipedia encyclopedia." Evidently, wikipedia is relied on by those in the online dictionary biz.--Beth Wellington 19:19, 4 March 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.