Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conspicuous conservation

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. - brenneman 05:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conspicuous conservation

Neologism, no sources, POV Schizobullet 21:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nom echoes my thoughts. Sort of sounds like them saying "if you do these things, you do it whether you want to or not". --Dennisthe2 22:24, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A Proquest Newspapers search turned up some uses of the term, but not really enough to write an article that goes beyond a dicdef. Delete unless solid sources are found. For the record, this was the best source I found:

Yet even with gasoline selling for well above $2 a gallon, alternative-fuel vehicles may save their owners only a few hundred dollars a year in fuel costs. For many motorists, that may not be enough to offset the extra expense of purchasing such a vehicle, said Edwin Stafford, a Utah State University marketing researcher.... In the case of hybrid and natural-gas-fueled vehicles, there is the benefit of "conspicuous conservation." Status can be gained from being among a growing number of motorists driving a socially conscious vehicle that helps the environment, Stafford said.

Stafford, Edwin; Richard Kolodziej (May 7, 2005). "Driving Green". The Salt Lake Tribune. pp. D9.

—Cel ithemis 00:10, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is why there is a guideline for neologisms, any two words put together in a unique combination by more than one person could have its own article.--Dmz5*Edits**Talk* 00:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless shown to have been used in a reliable source. Dmz5 puts it excellently. Stifle (talk) 20:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). ~ trialsanderrors 08:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Conspicuous consumption. I find a smattering of mentions in the Veblenite sense (A Shama, Journal of Marketing, 1981, so not quite a neologism) and a few mentions with completely different meanings. The sources merit a comment in the conspicuous consumption article, but don't really amount to established usage which should be the threshold for an independent article. ~ trialsanderrors 09:00, 16 January 2007 (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.