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. Rlendog (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Place-keeping

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Apparent WP:NEOLOGISM, "defined" by someone in paper earlier cited but since deleted; first ten Google hits for "place-keeping" "public spaces" are all associated with an author of the cited paper or the MP4 organization, for whom one of paper's author works as a Research Associate. Gets fewer than 400 unique ghits (to be clear, in link with "public spaces", chosen as a likely relevant term to differentiate from other common uses of "place keeping"), many of which are not this usage. Nat Gertler (talk) 12:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have wiktionary for this. Yunshui 雲‍水 12:42, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No other use of the term in the context mentioned besides sources associated with the page's author listed in an earlier edit of the article. Total-MAdMaN (talk) 14:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as neologism. Somewhat mystifying to find the refs have to be located in history; but they don't change the fact it's a neologism, and poorly-chosen at that. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per above reasoning. No reliable sources are found to establish notability. This term belongs on Wiktionary, really. Tinton5 (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2012 (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.