Talk:Bacn

message: I created this page becuase i had heard a Reference to the term and didn't know what it meant and searched for it on wiki, I then heard an explination on buzz out loud (http://podcast-files.cnet.com/podcast/cnet_buzzoutloud_082207.mp3) which explained what the term means.  
I might not have written a great artical which needs improvements but i don't think it deserves deleation.
Couple of more references include: 
http://www.hill-kleerup.org/blog/2007/08/22/baconbaconbacon.html 
http://topazpartners.blogspot.com/2007/08/bacn-new-spam-but-how-it-can-be-good.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2007/08/22/bacn_spreads_around_.html
:i'm glad to see another entry made for Bacn.  i originally created a stub after (similarly) hearing about it on a podcast and then following up with a little research.  my article was promptly deleted but perhaps there's cause to keep it around? cheers, Spongebobsqpants 23:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable

message: Google pulls up c. 177k hits for "bacn" (less British, Battlefield, and Bay Area). On the other hand, every major use is people trying to explain what it is and get others to use it. It's notable, but not necessarily "popular." On the other hand, shouldn't this be a wiktionary entry instead? It's just a term. — LlywelynII 10:26, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: This entry into Wikipedia certainly shows all signs of the same, with individuals with personal interests in getting more spotlight on the term keeping it alive.  I question how it is decided whether something belongs in Wiktionary instead of Wikipedia.  Isn't everything "just a term"?  I understand there are vague guidelines for "back story", etc, but anyone can add an origin and small story for how and where a term has been coined to get around these guidelines and I think that's precisely what's been done here. -- halfmoon 18:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

text: It has been deleted from Wiktionary because there was no real usage, only mentions as "cool new word!". Nobody uses the word naturally. 86.185.137.150 (talk) 01:18, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not Wiktionary?

message: I disagree with deleting this article.  It may not be amazingly well written, or overly informative, but there's not much more that needs to be said about it.  I read about it on a blog, and had no idea what it was, and several other blogs did no better job explaining it, so I went to wikipedia, and bam!  there's the answer.  That's what wikipedia is for. dimo414 23:31, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If that is the case we can delete it in a few weeks when it fades away. But until then, we should keep it, as it serves its purpose. JARS, Inc. | Talk 06:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: faded away yet? seems so 99.240.128.108 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Regarding Deletion 

message: bacn iz niyse in sarniez  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.223.173 (talk) 11:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  bacn 

message: Once I know what bacn "means", the only other thing I care about is what does it stand for -- or, if it's not an acronym at all, why is it "bacn" rather than "bacon"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkpete (talk • contribs) 11:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed. My only theory is it's a misspelling of 'bacon' so it's got the same number of letters as 'spam'. Which is pretty rubbish 78.86.212.232 (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

text: I guess it's just an attempt to web-two-oh-ize the term (think Flickr, for instance). Dunno? --Jopo (talk) 18:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they've succeed in stupefying it totally.--IceHunter (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, it's ridiculous. 213.246.88.14 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Ridiculs, even. Luzzy fogic (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

text: Indeed. See article. — LlywelynII 10:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does bacn stand for, if anything? 

message: I too heard it came from some pod caster's convention, however, it there tangible evidence of this? Can we add a reference? --Dave Marcucci(talk) 20:23, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not, instead of deleting chunks of valid information re-write it. Simply looking through the discussion proves that there is a need for the Back Story and Origin. Help by making it more encyclopedic. Also, credit those who deserve it. Manx203 (talk) 19:17, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: There's not really any need for an origin story, but did edit for tone to make it less chatty. — LlywelynII 10:36, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference of origin 

message: A mention and link in the Gmail blog will probably make this page quite popular. Paulmorriss (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google refer to it 

message: There were two sentences before about Gmail using the term bacn when rolling out their new advertising model along with a new system of prioritizing mail. It read more like a promotion of Gmail than anything informative or interesting (and in fact Gmail linked viewers to the wiki on bacn). If anyone's going to reinstitute the piece on Gmail at least leave out the completely irrelevant part of Gmail also filtering spam from inboxes. Simply using the word bacn a couple times does not qualify two sentences' worth of mention of Gmail's products.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymon32 (talk • contribs) 09:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed about avoiding advertizing, but probably worth pointing out industry use of the term, if we're going to have an article at all. — LlywelynII 10:39, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of Gmail reference 

message: This is ridiculous, this page should be deleted.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.254.230 (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I agree it should be deleted. All of the sources seem to be blogs "buzzing" about this exciting new word. I have yet to see a single person using the word unpretentiously, naturally, and without drawing "cool new word!" attention to it. That's why it was deleted from Wiktionary, which requires actual usage rather than mentions. 86.166.73.185 (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Delete