Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yuccie

Yuccie

Yuccie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(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)

• 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)

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

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

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)

• 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)

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)

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

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

• Weak keep. 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)

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)

• Keep per Roysmith. 92.6.188.30 (talk) 12:16, 13 May 2017 (UTC)