Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (7th nomination)

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 Keep. The article's current state does raise concerns, but not enough to warrant a deletion/transwiki. -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Girlfriend

Girlfriend (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Should be turned into a dab page, or rather the dab page should be moved here. RightGot (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Survived 6 nominations. Georgia guy (talk) 22:27, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, WP:POINTy nom due to user's own recent deletion history. Chris Cunningham (talk) 22:31, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic, I don't see how it is a dictionary entry. ♦Ace of Silver♦ 22:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It discusses the etymology of the word. Etymologies are for dictionaries. RightGot (talk) 22:47, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
    • By that logic, let's AfD Animal. Speedy Keep. Justin' ^chat 07:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - spurious nomination by troll. See User_talk:RightGot, User_talk:RightGot/Archive_1 and WP:ANI#RightGot andy (talk) 23:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. I can't see how this can be a _spurious_ nomination if it's already been round six times. RightGot, whatever his motives, is _not_ the first editor to doubt the notability of this article. Tevildo (talk) 00:20, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. This article _is_ just a dicdef. Tevildo (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep- It is more than a dicdef, but this point is not even relevant. It's notable, and if you think it is just a dicdef, then expand it. SeanMD80^{talk | contribs} 00:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep; encyclopedic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:10, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep per Chris Cunningham. Jonathan 00:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. User is pissed off his own articles got nominated so he's going on a WP:POINT rampage.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 00:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. If the issue here is merely RightGot's behaviour, I'm more than happy to renominate this article without (I hope) appearing to have an ulterior motive. The "Keep" opinions in the 3rd AfD (the last genuine debate, held eighteen months ago when our standards were much laxer) very frequently mention the article's "potential for improvement"; I see no evidence of such improvement having occurred, or, indeed, for the existence of the potential in the first place. Tevildo (talk) 00:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: At this point in the discussion, user:Canley closed the debate as "speedy-keep". However, because another user had commented in apparent good faith agreeing with the nomination, this was not eligible for closure under the speedy keep rules. I have reopened the debate and relisted it to the current day to correct for the premature closure. Rossami (talk) 05:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Given user's edit history, this could be a POINTy nomination. Either way, it's far from a great article, but it contains sufficient information to be more than just a dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep Encyclopedic, and this article has survived about 6 or 7 nomations for deletion of this article. Daniel5127 ^(talk) 05:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• I've reread the article three times now and I can't find anything on the page that I wouldn't expect to see in a truly great, unabridged dictionary (like Wiktionary). I see a thorough discussion of the meaning and usage of an english word. I don't see anything here that goes past lexical content into encyclopedic content. In all the prior discussions (excluding the speedy-closures), the consensus seems to me to have been "it's not a very good article but it might have potential so let's give it the benefit of doubt for now". After three years, I'm coming to the conclusion that there is no potential here for this page to ever go past lexical content. Delete (following a merger of any useful content to wikt:girlfriend) unless someone can actually point to something on the page that is encyclopedic as opposed to merely lexical. Rossami (talk) 05:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination. Also the article is not properly tagged. The article is easy to improve as I have just demonstrated with a cite of an academic journal - one of 80,000 that I found in Google Scholar. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The tagging was my mistake. I overlooked that when repairing the premature closure. Now fixed. Rossami (talk)
• Keep: Obviously keep it, per all of the above. Also keep because the AFD tag was removed less than 4 hours after this nomination. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep - One of the most notable articles on Wikipedia! TheProf07 (talk) 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep The article provides ample reliable and verifiable sources to demonstrate notability beyond a mere dictionary definition. The fact that another AfD is being created this article spits in the face of WP:CONSENSUS, established over four substantive AfD discussions in the past few years. The goal appears to be to ignore any consensus through repeated AfDs until the only acceptable result -- deletion -- is achieved. More deletionism run amok. Alansohn (talk) 17:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reluctant but Strong Delete. The entry is essentially that of a dictionary, rather than a referenced encyclopedia article. —SlamDiego_←T 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Several people have argued here that the article itself is somehow "notable". Could someone please explain what evidence there is to support that assertion? Or why it's relevant? The only question on the table is whether this article has any reasonable potential of expansion past a mere definition. Rossami (talk)
• Comment. What decides when this article will close?? Georgia guy (talk) 21:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Please see the Guide to deletion. AFD discussions run for a minimum of 5 days unless either the page is determined to meet one of the deliberately narrow speedy-deletion criteria or the discussion itself meets the equally narrow speedy keep criteria. Since neither of those apply, this would now be scheduled to close on or about 30 Jan. Rossami (talk)
    • It was nominated on the 19th. So that would be 11 days. Or are these nominations 7 (the one before the speedy closure) and 7A (the current one)?? Georgia guy (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Often times a relisting of an AfD resets the clock, and since it hasn't been closed yet, that appears to be the case with this situation. -- RoninBK _{T C} 22:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
        • Correct. The time between a premature close and relisting do not count on the clock. 5 days are for open discussion. Rossami (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. AfD is not clean-up, per WP:AfD - if an article can be improved through regular editing it is not a good candidate for AfD. Yes the article needs work on the origins/etymology, different uses in different cultures and a notable usages section. Just because it is neglected doesn't mean it can't be greatly improved. Benjiboi 22:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep** Why the constant stupid debating about deleting this article, delete the boyfriend article as well then. --88.108.50.63 (talk) 23:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
• Actually, I sorta agree that we should move Girlfriend to Girlfriend (person) and make this a disambiguation. So, I'll go move. ViperSnake151 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • How does the dis-ambiguation page deserve equal-topic dis-ambiguation here?? Georgia guy (talk) 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: really think its an interesting article that deserves to be part of the topic puzzle. its subjects that I can type in and have pop up like this that makes wiki so amazing. I do think it could be written a bit better/improved though. User:Mattpikous —Preceding comment was added at 04:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• AfD is not Cleanup®. The problems the nom raises do not really raise the need for a deletion. These sort of problems that can be fixed by other means should be handled through ordinary article discussions. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. I get fed up when people constantly relist just to get the result they want. Give it up. Mike H. Fierce! 21:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

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.