810:- Which reliable sources establish notability of the term itself? All I see is reliable sources that report a news event where one person refers to his actions by giving it the name bumvertising? How does that make this term notable? If you were to call a local ad agency and ask for a marketing plan that included "bumvertising", what reaction would you get? Would they even know what it is? -
740:
This ABC news article is clearly about Mr. Rogovy's coining of the term. The leading paragraph says "he calls it 'bum-vertising'." So how do you say it is about the term? I would concur that this is clearly a reliable secondary source to prove that Mr. Rogovy has created the neologism. It makes no
396:
Certainly a possibility. Thing is, this article is referencing a particular person's idea to capitalize on the idea, to the point of creating a business about it... Also, did I make my nomination description more concise and understandable for you? I didn't mean to be as absurdly verbose as I was.
269:
Good point. Upon reexamination, it seems that all the coverage is focused around a short burst of news reports. Absent something that indicates this is more far-reaching than a one-time publicity stunt that got some coverage, I don't think it meets the requirements. I looked around, trying to find
181:
I don't even understand the deletion nom, except that first sentence, and part of the next, which, if I may paraphrase, seems to say "it should be deleted because it isn't humanitarian, socially accepted, and highly disrepectful". It's been sourced, multiple times, to multiple sources. Notability
558:. The sourcing on the article indicates this so-called "neologism" has been used and acknowledged by at least two major news sources (3 if you count The Daily Show). Ergo it is no longer a neologism. Plenty of sources to establish notability of both the term and the concept.
288:
of the concept, instead of the specific term 'Bumvertising', even so. I think it's an interesting discussion nonetheless. Also: Are you saying you are changing your vote, or just removing your keep vote? (Not to press the subject haha)
683:
the term." So no matter how reliable the news source is (NY Times, Washington Post, SF Chronicle), if the article centers on Mr. Rogovy and his "coining" of the term then the article does not qualify as a secondary source for
675:. The proper quote would be "when secondary sources (about the term) become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic." The editorial insert is based on the first part of this section in
196:
since it has been reliably sourced, and since this term and
Benjamin Rogovy certainly get hits. I don't understand the nomination either. If the basis for deleting is that this exploitative practice is
83:
77:
217:
What's not to understand? I can explain anything you need me to. The most important argument is the notability guidelines. I even quoted the most relevant passage from the policy right there.
284:
Interesting. I definitely agree with you on that, to the effect that if more on that issue was found, I'd see why it would carry more weight. I would still suggest a re-write to cover the
839:. Admittedly, it has gotten some press, but not very much. Admittedly, it also seems to be a phenomenon. Perhaps more discussion here will clarify this issue this time around. --- (Bob)
163:: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." I'd love to hear other opinions on this. Thanks.
144:
237:, I think that the larger debate unfolding around the ethical implications moves this from transient news coverage surrounding a single event to something more significant.
201:
humanitarian or socially accepted, or that it's highly disrespectful to the homeless... then I can only say that I see these as reasons that this article should exist.
71:
270:
something that indicated this was an issue facing the homeless community, but couldn't find anything. If something like that materialized, I'd change my mind.
531:
essentially a neologism of something which, as noted above isn't really all that new and can't really be said to have caught on to any significant degree.
378:
OK, but in all seriousness, the idea of down-and-out people wearing a sandwich board for advertising has been around for a long time. I remember a
303:
Yeah, I think the topic is neat, and I'd like to see more general coverage. To clarify, I am removing my keep vote. I guess I default to neutral.
601:: "...and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic." , multiple news sources qualify.
679:
which says "to support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers
768:
A very good point you make. Thank you for bringing that to the table - you filled in good gaps that were in my argument. I appreciate it.
17:
111:
106:
848:
819:
798:
777:
754:
731:
708:
659:
640:
611:
585:
567:
550:
523:
499:
473:
434:
420:
406:
391:
373:
357:
326:
312:
298:
279:
264:
226:
210:
172:
115:
54:
251:
I don't care about the ethical implications with respect to it's encyclopedic legitimacy. My point is that it doesn't meet
464:
not just articles about the incident that coined the term. In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish a term! -
98:
863:
36:
815:
750:
704:
469:
456:. All of the google hits I reviewed (although there are many) point to the one incident that coined the term. Per
862:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
416:
387:
353:
187:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
49:
155:, it doesn't seem to apply as such, then I would definitely suggest it doesn't seem notable, as described by
252:
156:
152:
773:
636:
430:
402:
369:
322:
294:
260:
222:
168:
457:
811:
746:
700:
511:
465:
581:
519:
844:
412:
383:
349:
206:
183:
794:
563:
308:
275:
242:
649:
A Reliable Source does not stop being reliable simply because it is older than you would like.
769:
722:
650:
632:
602:
426:
398:
365:
318:
290:
256:
218:
164:
102:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
718:
462:
a new term does not belong in WP unless there are there are reliable sources about the term,
364:
Great, makes me feel so good about the level of concern here ^^ I'll shorten it, I suppose.
676:
672:
624:
598:
160:
515:
631:
to constitute evidence of sufficient notability." The only references are from Aug 2005!
840:
532:
495:
202:
790:
789:
Disturbing to say the least, but the reliable sources provided establish notability.
559:
304:
271:
238:
685:
94:
60:
132:
483:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
831:
as per nom and unless it's re-written in a more balanced fashion. As it is, it
742:
697:
In a nutshell, WP should not be a place to establish notability for a neologism.
745:
to either neologism or to acceptance and use in the advertising industry. -
689:
490:
453:
48:. and not likely for one to emerge with strong reasoning on both sides.
382:
episode about it. Perhaps the article could be expanded and retitled.
837:
16:22, 14 August 2005 SchmuckyTheCat (Talk | contribs) (creation)
856:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
345:
741:
ground whatsoever in proving that the term has moved from
629:
short burst of news reports about a single event or topic
182:
seems to be well-established by the first deletion nom.
576:
That doesn't change the fact that it is a neologism. --
139:
128:
124:
120:
835:
like a shameless advert. It was originally created by
488:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
84:
Articles for deletion/Bumvertising (2nd nomination)
78:Articles for deletion/Bumvertising (2nd nomination
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
866:). No further edits should be made to this page.
692:to gain acceptance, there should be articles
8:
721:in the Article. I am willing to accept it.
153:Knowledge (XXG)'s Notability Guidelines
69:
671:- You seem to be selectively quoting
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
625:Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source
161:Knowledge (XXG) is not a news source
67:
72:Articles for deletion/Bumvertising
24:
425:Cool. Thanks for the feedback.
245:) 4:31, 28 September 2008 (EST)
474:04:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
435:04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
421:03:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
407:05:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
392:04:01, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
374:03:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
358:03:45, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
327:08:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
313:05:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
299:04:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
280:14:51, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
265:03:24, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
227:19:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
211:15:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
173:05:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
1:
627:: it takes more than just a
849:19:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
820:23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
799:16:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
778:04:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
755:23:23, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
732:21:04, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
709:02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
660:23:36, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
641:04:25, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
612:03:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
586:16:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
568:12:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
551:04:31, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
524:03:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
500:02:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
55:04:41, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
883:
317:Thanks for clarifying. :)
157:Knowledge (XXG):Notability
151:Main reason for deletion:
859:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
66:AfDs for this article:
346:too long, didn't read
255:, as I quoted above.
253:notability guidelines
717:There is, and it is
380:Leave it to Beaver
344:. Nomination was
44:The result was
730:
729:
658:
657:
610:
609:
584:
502:
411:Nom is fine now.
874:
861:
728:
727:
725:
656:
655:
653:
608:
607:
605:
580:
579:
548:
545:
542:
539:
487:
485:
142:
136:
118:
52:
34:
882:
881:
877:
876:
875:
873:
872:
871:
870:
864:deletion review
857:
723:
694:about the term.
651:
603:
577:
546:
543:
540:
537:
510:As per nom and
481:
138:
109:
93:
90:
88:
80:
64:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
880:
878:
869:
868:
852:
851:
825:
824:
823:
822:
802:
801:
783:
782:
781:
780:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
757:
735:
734:
712:
711:
665:
664:
663:
662:
644:
643:
615:
614:
591:
590:
589:
588:
571:
570:
553:
533:Andrew Lenahan
526:
504:
503:
486:
478:
477:
476:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
413:Squidfryerchef
384:Squidfryerchef
361:
360:
350:Squidfryerchef
338:
337:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
248:
247:
230:
229:
214:
213:
191:
184:SchmuckyTheCat
149:
148:
89:
87:
86:
81:
76:
74:
68:
65:
63:
58:
51:TravellingCari
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
879:
867:
865:
860:
854:
853:
850:
846:
842:
838:
834:
830:
827:
826:
821:
817:
813:
809:
806:
805:
804:
803:
800:
796:
792:
788:
785:
784:
779:
775:
771:
767:
764:
763:
756:
752:
748:
744:
739:
738:
737:
736:
733:
726:
720:
716:
715:
714:
713:
710:
706:
702:
698:
695:
691:
687:
682:
678:
674:
670:
667:
666:
661:
654:
648:
647:
646:
645:
642:
638:
634:
630:
626:
622:
619:
618:
617:
616:
613:
606:
600:
596:
593:
592:
587:
583:
575:
574:
573:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
554:
552:
549:
534:
530:
527:
525:
521:
517:
513:
509:
506:
505:
501:
497:
493:
492:
484:
480:
479:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
455:
451:
448:
447:
436:
432:
428:
424:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
395:
394:
393:
389:
385:
381:
377:
376:
375:
371:
367:
363:
362:
359:
355:
351:
347:
343:
340:
339:
328:
324:
320:
316:
315:
314:
310:
306:
302:
301:
300:
296:
292:
287:
283:
282:
281:
277:
273:
268:
267:
266:
262:
258:
254:
250:
249:
246:
244:
240:
236:
232:
231:
228:
224:
220:
216:
215:
212:
208:
204:
200:
195:
192:
189:
185:
180:
177:
176:
175:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
154:
146:
141:
134:
130:
126:
122:
117:
113:
108:
104:
100:
96:
92:
91:
85:
82:
79:
75:
73:
70:
62:
59:
57:
56:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
858:
855:
836:
832:
828:
812:¢Spender1983
807:
786:
765:
747:¢Spender1983
724:Exit2DOS2000
701:¢Spender1983
696:
693:
686:Bumvertising
680:
668:
652:Exit2DOS2000
628:
620:
604:Exit2DOS2000
594:
555:
536:
528:
512:¢Spender1983
507:
489:
482:
466:¢Spender1983
461:
458:WP:Neologism
449:
379:
341:
285:
234:
233:
198:
193:
178:
150:
95:Bumvertising
61:Bumvertising
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
774:Talk to me!
743:protologism
637:Talk to me!
578:neon white
516:Proxy User
841:Wikiklrsc
690:neologism
454:neologism
203:Mandsford
808:Question
791:Alansohn
766:Response
688:. For a
621:Response
560:23skidoo
305:Mintrick
272:Mintrick
239:Mintrick
145:View log
669:Comment
112:protect
107:history
829:Delete
677:WP:NEO
673:WP:NEO
599:WP:NEO
597:- per
529:Delete
508:Delete
450:Delete
140:delete
116:delete
833:seems
719:cited
681:about
623:per "
143:) – (
133:views
125:watch
121:links
16:<
845:talk
816:talk
795:talk
787:Keep
751:talk
705:talk
595:KEEP
582:talk
564:talk
556:Keep
520:talk
496:talk
491:Cirt
470:talk
431:talk
417:talk
403:talk
388:talk
370:talk
354:talk
342:Keep
323:talk
309:talk
295:talk
286:idea
276:talk
261:talk
243:talk
235:Keep
223:talk
207:talk
194:Keep
188:talk
179:Keep
169:talk
129:logs
103:talk
99:edit
770:Pip
633:Pip
544:bli
452:as
427:Pip
399:Pip
366:Pip
319:Pip
291:Pip
257:Pip
219:Pip
199:not
165:Pip
159:: "
847:)
818:)
797:)
776:)
753:)
707:)
699:-
639:)
566:)
547:nd
541:ar
538:St
535:-
522:)
514:.
498:)
472:)
460:,
433:)
419:)
405:)
390:)
372:)
356:)
348:.
325:)
311:)
297:)
278:)
263:)
225:)
209:)
171:)
131:|
127:|
123:|
119:|
114:|
110:|
105:|
101:|
843:(
814:(
793:(
772:(
749:(
703:(
635:(
562:(
518:(
494:(
468:(
429:(
415:(
401:(
386:(
368:(
352:(
321:(
307:(
293:(
274:(
259:(
241:(
221:(
205:(
190:)
186:(
167:(
147:)
137:(
135:)
97:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.