Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deal space

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deal space

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

Non-notable term, with references scraping the barrel to substantiate its use. Nothing else findable on Google search, suggesting term has a very niche and insignficant use. See WP:NOTNEO. Nick Moyes (talk) 20:45, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Business people seem to understand it. Even Donald Trump has used it publicly. I suggest that we consider (a) finding business users who can participate in this discussion and (b) if no justification for keeping it emerges, consider migrating its content and subject matter to a pre-existing article.

I worry that too many deletion requests come from folks outside the venues where the terms are used, and encyclopedias DO exist to guide searchers in preliminary ways to core understandings that help move them forward in their quests for understanding.

But I also believe that the concern for 'merely niche uses' is a valid and reasonable concern. MaynardClark (talk) 21:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 00:58, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTNEO requires discussion about the term, not just use of the term, and I wasn't even about to find that much use of the term. The one article I could find [1] about "the deal space" uses that term in an entirely different way than this article does - not as permutations of a deal, but as a place one can go for discounts (Groupon, basically). Egsan Bacon (talk) 17:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEO, according to which to keep the article we need not merely uses of the term, but INDEPTH secondary sources discussing a neologism in terms of such aspects as its meaning, origin, and use.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Atrocious WP:GNG disgrace. Ventric (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2017 (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.