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. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Benchlearning[edit]

Benchlearning (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Neologism/buzz word and dictionary definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Somno (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or better yet, Transwiki over to Wiktionary fr33kman (talk) 02:26, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or follow above option. I'm not even sure what this term means (It's explaned in a confusing way), but it sounds like a neologism. RockManQ (talk) 02:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possible speedy delete as patent nonsense. No transwiki: I can't imagine Wiktionary needing a vacuous "definition" of an invented word, either. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all,

I know that benchlearning is a new concept, but this, I think that is very interesting that people can put their articles because there are more possibilities for this new word depending of the interest area.

If is not possible to have this article, I think that the proposal of fr33kman is also very interesting.

Thank you very much.Merce pastor (talk) 07:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC) (Moved from talk page [1] by Somno (talk) 03:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment: Benchlearning is a brand name[2] and registered trademark of a business management consultancy, and is the title of a book[3] which is apparently used in the consultancy's courses. (It acknowledges the trademark). An article about the product or service would need to be recast as such, and demonstrate appropriate notability for such. (GoogleScholar seems to indicate some notability.) Alternatively, it could merge into some article (which doesn't come to mind just now) on management improvement methodologies. (I do not think Wictionary wants this neologism.) ~ Ningauble (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• comment It's not really our job as wikipedian editors to decide if Wiktionary wants the term or not, merely that we don't and that it is a term and therefore should be transwiki'd to them for their vote. If they keep it fine, if not, fine also. fr33kman (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, the article is about the non-notable usage of a neologism by a non-notable group. The sole source cited is a small, newly formed online community (28 members, first blog posted April 2008). The section on origin of the term is wrong (according to an author of the book[4]). While Google and GoogleScholar turn up a number of use-cases for this buzzword, I don't find any reliable sources that address the concept by this name in depth. ~ Ningauble (talk) 14:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.