Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mumpreneur

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. Sandstein 07:53, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Mumpreneur

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

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

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

Fails WP:BASIC, has a mention in a recognised dictionary, and a few articles about the term itself. I don't find any sources of this word being widely used, in places other than those few articles. Daiyusha (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

* Retracting page has been redirected to wiktionary, no need of AfD Daiyusha (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC) Let's see where the discussion goes, Based on Serial's comment, I will stand with my original opinion then. Daiyusha (talk) 07:05, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

• (Non-IP and/or Founder comment) It was me that redirected it. Here's the chronology: It got PRODd by User:207.229.101.47, the PROD was removed by the article creator (Sallyjaynehall), the IP hit it with {{db-invented}}, but that can't honestly stick because of the dictionary and various mentions in RS—but nor would any other CSD cat, I think with the possible exception of G11? And even then ~ —so I contested it. I added the few RS I could find, realised it was promotional, probably paid-for-in-breach-of-terms-of-use crud, and that it was the perfect example of everything we don't want. So I redirected it to Wiktionary. But to be fair, that's not perfect: per WP:NOT being policy, also per the likely-ToU violatons, I feel it should still be deleted. This is a bit of a cock-up, for which I am in no small measure responsible, and in the middle of it is an IP who's going around barking instructions at peeps like he's Jimmy bloomin' Wales! ——Serial 18:22, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Paging Daiyusha who made the right call here... ——Serial 18:42, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
• Delete per Serial, the IP beat me to the PROD. Giraffer ^{(talk·contribs)} 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I can't see why this page should be deleted when you have a page for the American spelling, Mompreneur. Mumpreneur is a very widely used term in the UK and in British English. I have to stress again, this is in no way commercially driven - a group of women working in the nursery industry were interested in having the term included and I offered to help. No money is changing hands and I have no personal reasons for promoting any of the women named, other than having met some very impressive women in business over the years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallyjaynehall (talk • contribs) 15:40, 11 November 2021 (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.