Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stoozing (2nd nomination)

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 keep. Renaming can be done by editorial process. seresin | wasn't he just...? 04:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stoozing

This article is up for GA review. My feeling is that it is a jokey business slang term. It is not notable and is a neologism. At best, it should appear in Wikidictionary. Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:57, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral for now Most of the sources are primary sources, but that alone isn't necessarily a reason to delete. It's far from GA class in my opinion as a result -- however, I wouldn't entirely rule out any possible improvement. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A better search term for this might be "credit card arbitrage" or "balance transfer arbitrage". It's also effectively a form of kiting. --Dhartung | Talk 22:48, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename - I have no opinion on the name of the article, but the information is notable and the article should be kept. U$er (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Yes, the term is a neologism, but what of that? Hedging is also a "jokey slang term," but is not also nominated for deletion because of it. Stoozing is legal so it is not kiting, and arbitrage is a generic term for a number of very different activities. "Credit card arbitrage" might be a more accurate term if Wikipedians find the term "stoozing" off-putting. The nominator also fails to provide any reason why the information in the article is not noteworthy. So, overall I suggest that the GA review is largely bogus. --Gilgongo (talk) 17:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but if it's deleted, at least make it into a redirect to whatever everyone else thinks is the best synonym. — Frecklefσσt | Talk 15:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please will all reviewers read the discussion from the last time this article was nominated. If anything has materially changed since then, please declare it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gilgongo (talk • contribs) 23:55, 17 March 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.