Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recessionista

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. Wiktionary has had an article on this since 2008 so transwiki is not needed. I have however taken the liberty of re-creating it as a soft redirect to the Wiktionary article. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:47, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Recessionista

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

Article appears to be on a non-notable Neologism. Alpha Quadrant ^talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete best mention was a drive-by via the NYT. Not enough to be a "notable" expression, delete via wp:neo. Dennis Brown (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although I expected to delete as a neologism, I found widespread discussion of this term. WP:NEOLOGISM says, "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." It seems that this term meets that standard. The Financial Post here wrote "The word recessionista -- originally a person who enjoys dressing fashionably on a budget -- has gained rapidly in currency and now embraces the worlds of dining, entertaining and beauty. It was declared the word of the week on the Macmillan Dictionary Web site last week and is one of the top fashion buzz words of 2009, along with its sibling "chiconomics," according to the Global Language Monitor." It has also been covered by Reuters here, CBS News here, the Times of India here, Wales Online here, the San Francisco Chronicle here, as well as in several other publications.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cullen328 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Sorry for forgetting my signature. Cullen328 (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
comment Those are interesting, but the question remains if that is enough to be considered 'significant' and permanent. I will leave that to the closing admin. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:19, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. The leading definition of this term there has over 7,000 "votes" one way or the other, which indicates this may be less "non-notable" than I think it is. All the same, this is a stub dictionary definition of an unencyclopedic term. Carrite (talk) 16:01, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As if the concept of dressing well on a budget was new in 2008! —Tamfang (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - based on recent items and stories in major papers, this is now notable. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The newspaper sources appear to be discussions of the concept of frugality – or as Tamfang puts it, "dressing well on a budget" – with subsidiary mention/definition of the word as a word. To me, this does not seem to satisfy WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary's "major differences" criteria nor what we might think of as a "Thou exception". That is, there are some articles about words, but these are somewhat exceptional cases. Based on available sources, recessionista doesn't seem to rise to that level. Cnilep (talk) 13:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary, much less an urban dictionary. - SudoGhost (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki this. It is obviously notable, but there's not a lot else to say about the subject other than the definition, so it goes on Wiktionary. - filelakeshoe ^{(SAVE WIKIPEDIA)} 15:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I think you've got that right. Carrite (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment I concur with transwiki AS LONG as there isn't much to be said about it atm. If the term evolves to a cultural concept, then the article should be updated with examples, frugality culture, pictures of examples and celebrities who claim to follow it, and information of that would make into an encyclopedia entry. As for the time being, since I am not an expert on the subject, I'll leave it to the closing admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loukinho (talk • contribs) 20:41, 15 April 2011

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.