Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bafflegab

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 merge to Gobbledygook. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bafflegab[edit]

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

We already have an article on the concept of unintelligible jargon: Gobbledygook. This article would be better suited to a dictionary, as it has no encyclopedic content. Powers ^T 16:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It would be better for both pages. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge what? There's no encyclopedic content here to merge. Powers ^T 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have numerous pages of this sort: bloviation; circumlocution; corporate jargon; doublespeak; double-talk; gibberish; gobbledygook; legalese; mumbo jumbo; sesquipedalianism; technobabble; and more. There is perhaps some redundancy here but this is no reason to delete anything as they are all plausible search terms for the core concept. By maintaining multiple pages, we cast our net wide to catch the various histories and different shades of meaning. Our editing policy applies. Andrew (talk) 18:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Word histories and shades of meaning are the province of dictionaries, not encyclopedias, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. It seems that several closely-related concepts would be best covered in a single article in order to avoid a) duplication, b) confusion over which article a sourced statement should go into, and c) confusion over which article should be linked. Powers ^T 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the two or three sourced sentences to Gobbledygook. Per WP:NOTDIC, different names for the same thing are... wait for it... the same thing. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2014 (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.