Deletion of Bacn (electronic)

Comment: I looked it up here after reading about it at NPR. With all the secondary media sources, I think it is acceptable under  as long as it stays sourced (as it is now
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: While it is admittedly a neologism and thus runs afoul of , the term is already in surprisingly wide usage both online and now in print and other media. On a practical level, if the article is deleted, it will only a matter of time before some well-meaning person says "Hey, there's no article in Wikipedia on bacn, I'll create one!", in which case, this entire discussion will occur again.  Rightly or wrongly, people are turning to Wikipedia as a source for information about current topics and expect to find things like 'bacn' here.  My 2 cents
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: blog-only |neologism, something |made up in a podcast one day, and essentially promotional for the http://www.bacn2.com/ blog. If this catches on in a year or two (possible, but doubtful -- we used to call it "fram", friendly spam, and see how well that developed), then it will be possible to have an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NFT)

Comment: per .  Besides, any bac'n that's been sitting out since 21 August needs binned. '''Smiley
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Wikipedia is full of things i've never heard of but i don't think they should be deleted on that critira alone. seems to suggest that Articles on neologisms are sometimes appropriate. But I concide that this is a new term and that it may fall rapidly out of use and may not be appropriate according to .  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:NEO)

Comment: per  and 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:N)

Comment: Satisfies  "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. " The articles such as the one from the Chicago Tribune and the Toronto Star do just that.  The article about the origin of the term and about the phenomenon it describes makes it more than a dictionary definition. (Besides I have wanted a term for stuff I once requested or agreed to that still comes to my mailbox and clutters it until I delete it unread
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: per  and lack of reliable sources
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I'm listening to the http://www.npr.org/blogs/bryantpark/2007/08/nobody_puts_the_bpp_in_a_corne.html Bryant Park Project (an upcoming NPR newscast) about Bacn right now, and I looked it up on Wikipedia in hopes of getting more info.  It's also in http://blog.wired.com/business/2007/08/not-spam-but-ba.html Wired Magazine so I think it passes  and .  —Preceding Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned comment added by
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:N||WP:VER)