Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lump sum

Lump sum

Lump sum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Dicdef, nanostub. Article's been around 6 years and hasn't gained an iota of information. Delete or transwiki to wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:34, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete Just a definition with little potential for encyclopedic coverage. Cullen328 (talk) 20:01, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - Respectfully, this is a highly notable fundamental economics concept. Authors of articles in other places might naturally try to link this phrase. Blue links beat red. The definition is simplistic but precise and it is not beyond the pale that it will be further improved in the future. Keep and improve. Carrite (talk) 23:31, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Improve with what? Hope the Article Fairy sprinkles her pixie dust on it and turns it into an FA overnight? Get a grip on reality. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 23:35, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The article's shortness is not a valid reason to delete. Nor does shortness make the article a dicdef - please see WP:DICDEF which goes to some trouble to explain that the view that shortness = dicdef is fallacious. The nominator should please read that policy and also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

• Sources. Where are they? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 00:10, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Delete: no this is not "a highly notable fundamental economics concept." It is not an economics concept at all. It is in fact a very trivial accounting and finance concept. It is therefore highly unlikely that this article can usefully be expanded beyond a WP:DICTDEF stub. Should it be determined that something is required to avoid a redlink, I would suggest a soft-redirect to wikt:lump sum. (And no, a single, rather vacuous, unsourced example does not prevent this stillborn creation from being a mere WP:DICTDEF.) Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 05:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Nor does the irrelevant addition of examples of the usage of the term in news reports alter this fact. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk(P) 07:03, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep - seems like a good encyclopedia topic, and I do not think it is a mere dictionary definition. Wxidea (talk) 06:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep. Just the briefest glance at the 70,000 news articles reflected above demonstrated that there is indeed vast potential for encyclopedic RS coverage. I've added two such refs to the article, a century apart, with accompanying text. Plus, as the ELs reflect, we have entire books written on the subject.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep There are some articles about the effects of lump sum payments:[1][2][3], so I'm inclined to think that this could grow beyond a dicdef. Qrsdogg (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep. It's not a "word", it's a "term of art". There's a difference. This is about a phrase that's going to occur in contracts, judgments, and similar texts. An article that's essentially an extended definition of such a term of art is still going to be referenceable to multiple, independent, reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 05:11, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep -- Notable topic, sufficient references. I encourage the nominator to refrain from mocking references to the article fairy`s pixie dust. Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)