Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Consultantese
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. --Coredesat 05:22, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Consultantese
Contested prod. This is a list of jargon terms, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The term "Consultantese" itself is a neologism, as judged by its lack of sources and google hits. Several of the terms on this list appear to be made-up words; Wikipedia is not for things made up at work one day. Delete. >Radiant< 09:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per nom; neologism / jargon list with no reliable sources. --Muchness 09:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as unsourced and therefore anything-goes list of dubious jargon. -ese is another of those suffixes you can add to anything but it doesn't mean you've created a new word, just a formula. tomasz. 09:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- The concept that you are alluding to is productivity (linguistics). Uncle G 20:51, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete: The title is a neologism; the content is unreferenced. Had the article been written under another title and its sources referenced, its content might be worth keeping.--Gavin Collins 12:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as written, but perhaps userfy. The individual entries might find a better home on Wiktionary. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:24, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete as neologism. JJL 16:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Delete per all of above. Fails WP:NEO. The Evil Spartan 17:28, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, "consultantese" satisfies Wiktionary's attestation requirements for being a word in widespread use, with independent uses in running text in print going back for at least a decade, and would no longer be regarded as a neologism. But this is the encyclopaedia, not the dictionary.
This article purports to be an encyclopaedia article about consultantese. But it's actually a mis-placed dictionary, in the wrong project. The encyclopaedic discussion of the use of jargon by consultants, for which there appear to be many sources (not least ISBN 0849380073, which has some interesting things to say about why consultants use jargon), has yet to be written. Uncle G 20:51, 29 May 2007 (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.
