169:- The sources provided give enough notability to the word for it to be appropriate along notable guidelines, but I wonder if it should be included at all, as it is really just a definition. It doesn't really matter if any one of us subjectively thinks the concept of the neologism is "novel," but we should instead think about whether its history/creation/usage warrant an encyclopedic entry because of some impact it has made on society. Honestly, I'm on the fence about this one,
213:, and then read the article more closely. The article consists of original research, with citations that only list individuals who have used the term. Per Knowledge policy, qualifying a neologism is not about establishing broad usage (although this article would still fail to make that case), but rather to document a word based on reliable, scholarly sources. Qualifying secondary sources include scholarly works that are
222:
or corporate politics, possibly written by a sociologist. After you remove the original research, unverified claims, and the lists of examples of usage, what remains in the article is a single reference: a 2007 magazine article by Liz Ryan—which also doesn't qualify since it's an editorial! This word
217:
the term, not samples of usage. This is a good practice to endorse because it helps to ensure an accurate, thoughtful definition with a solid foundation, rather than one that's largely speculative and subjective. In this particular case, an example of a qualifying source might be a book or paper
281:. Just because something may be an editorial does not mean it is not a reliable source—editorials in major publications go through the same fact-checking procedures as other articles. Liz Ryan's
294:
120:
190:. The word has been used by multiple independent people and the article goes beyond a mere definition, it mentions occurances and events related to the term. -
293:" ("A frenemy is an enemy disguised as a friend. This term is a recent addition to popular lexicon, but the concept is as old as history."); "
297:("Neologisms like 'Coopetition' (Brandenburger and Nalebuff, 1997) and 'Frenemy' came into use to attempt to describe these new realities").
17:
210:
87:
82:
206:
91:
49:
321:
36:
320:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
74:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
195:
264:
286:
306:
269:
232:
197:
182:
161:
139:
56:
228:
191:
178:
155:
135:
302:
290:
258:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
244:
usage of the word does not establish the word's notability for inclusion. The sections on
241:
224:
174:
149:
131:
298:
78:
148:— new terms are okay, as long as they are reliably sourced, in which this one is.
108:
278:
219:
285:
article is clearly significant coverage. But you want scholarly sources? "
253:
252:
are more or less OR. This term belongs to
Wiktionary, where it already
70:
62:
223:
may qualify for
Knowledge inclusion someday, but for now it doesn't.
130:
is an uncommon neologism which does not describe a novel concept.
314:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
295:
The business strategy/corporate social responsibility 'mash-up'
291:
Vascularization as a
Potential Enemy in Valvular Heart Disease
240:. Completely agree with Ringbang's rationale given above.
205:. Hi everyone, please consult the Knowledge policy pages
115:
104:
100:
96:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
324:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
279:significant coverage in reliable sources
7:
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
211:Knowledge:No original research
1:
307:05:22, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
270:17:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
233:20:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
198:10:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
183:10:11, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
162:08:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
140:05:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
57:01:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
287:Sleeping with the 'Frenemy'
341:
207:Knowledge:Avoid neologisms
317:Please do not modify it.
250:Commercial relationships
32:Please do not modify it.
44:The result was
332:
319:
158:
152:
118:
112:
94:
54:
34:
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
331:
330:
329:
328:
322:deletion review
315:
268:
242:Popular culture
156:
150:
114:
85:
69:
66:
50:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
338:
336:
327:
326:
310:
309:
272:
262:
235:
218:about applied
200:
185:
164:
125:
124:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
337:
325:
323:
318:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
292:
288:
284:
280:
276:
273:
271:
267:
266:
261:
260:
255:
251:
247:
243:
239:
236:
234:
230:
226:
221:
216:
212:
208:
204:
201:
199:
196:
193:
189:
186:
184:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
163:
159:
153:
147:
144:
143:
142:
141:
137:
133:
129:
122:
117:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
53:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
316:
313:
283:Businessweek
282:
274:
263:
257:
249:
245:
237:
214:
202:
187:
170:
166:
145:
127:
126:
51:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
220:game theory
225:Ringbang
175:SMSpivey
151:MuZemike
132:Ringbang
121:View log
299:DHowell
259:Sleaves
171:Neutral
167:Comment
128:Frenemy
88:protect
83:history
71:Frenemy
63:Frenemy
254:exists
246:People
238:Delete
203:Delete
116:delete
92:delete
215:about
119:) – (
109:views
101:watch
97:links
52:StarM
16:<
303:talk
277:per
275:Keep
265:talk
248:and
229:talk
209:and
188:Keep
179:talk
157:talk
146:Keep
136:talk
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
289:; "
192:Mgm
305:)
256:.
231:)
181:)
160:)
138:)
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
48:.
301:(
227:(
194:|
177:(
173:.
154:(
134:(
123:)
113:(
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.