Talk:Bacn

This article was nominated for deletion on August 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for merging with Email_spam#Related_vocabulary on 13 March 2015. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was to merge.

Computing Low‑importance

	This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Notable

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)[reply]

Popular?

Claims this is a "popular" term among the blogging community are not substantiated. Better to say "used by some bloggers". I've blogged for years, and read blogs for years and never encountered the term before today. (Google used it). I think there is a place for this term, and I like how the use of a "non-real" term bacn vs bacon avoids confusion. I would suggest that we drop the popularity claim for now and in a year if popularity actually develops, it can be re-added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.53.175.249 (talk) 15:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Last artical claims that it was the 14th most popular search term on http://technorati.com/

Additionally I think that it is a good term, a bit like spam but bacon tastes nicer! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tommy turrell (talk • contribs) 16:47, August 23, 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. I really like bacon, so I would call the email I do want bacon. And the email I want but for later ham. And the email I never want. Spam. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.69.39.217 (talk) 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about you add your sources to the article and we'll take it from there? 1redrun ^Talk 16:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Wiktionary?

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)[reply]

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)

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)[reply]

Regarding Deletion

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)[reply]

I concur. Please don't delete the article- it may be a stub (and I just marked it as such) but it is useful and I expect it will grow into a proper article with time. --Treekids 06:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree in not deleting this article. Simply because as an Internet Marketer, I received several requests and articles in my email regarding BACN emails. I quickly hopped online to do some research, finding very little information about it's origin, etc. Webopedia, my prior definition-site of choice, had nothing on the term at all, but Wikipedia had as much information as I needed. As Treekids noted: It may presently just be a stub, but it will grow in time. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.142.153.12 (talk) 15:20, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
This is nothing more than a forced attempt at a internet buzz word being hyped by some bloggers in pittsburgh. It will fade away in a few weeks and this should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.7.247.208 (talk) 21:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)99.240.128.108 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

faded away yet? seems so 99.240.128.108 (talk) 18:57, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would classify this article itself as "spam". I've been involved in the anti-spam community since the original "Green Card" spam, and I have never heard of this one. There have been a number of terms that occasionally get wide use for "things that aren't quite spam" such as "velveeta", and if this one had ever gotten common use I'm sure I'd have heard of it. Delete it. -- Resuna (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also never heard of it, but notable jargon within email services industry (within google, etc.) Probably is best dealt with by deletion after being shunted to a wiktionary entry. — LlywelynII 10:34, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Gmail abuses this article in a help link to Show more useful ads by using importance signals from across my messages. –89.204.137.136 (talk) 18:42, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This entry meets both bullet points 3 and 13 of the Wikipedia deletion policy. -- halfmoon 18:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imnok1 (talk • contribs)

I disagree - I don't think it meets point 3 (Vandalism) and I can't see what you mean by point 13 (namespace use against some other policy?) MJaggard (talk) 08:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

bacn

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

What does bacn stand for, if anything?

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Well they've succeed in stupefying it totally.--IceHunter (talk) 21:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, it's ridiculous. 213.246.88.14 (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ridiculs, even. Luzzy fogic (talk) 08:51, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. See article. — LlywelynII 10:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reference of origin

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Google refer to it

A mention and link in the Gmail blog will probably make this page quite popular. Paulmorriss (talk) 16:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Gmail reference

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Delete

This is ridiculous, this page should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.183.254.230 (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Very helpful well thought out comment - thank you. MJaggard (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]