Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend zone (2nd 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 No consensus (default keep). JERRY ^talk _contribs 04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend zone

Completely unsourced original research. No notability established, and the "no original research" policy is non-negotiable. Survived an AfD over a year ago, keeps said to cleanup and source the article and no one ever did. Can't find any reference to this in scholarly sources. Chardish (talk) 07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's not bad, why not keep it for reference sake? I can find no flaw here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sderenzi (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It's hardly "completely unsourced"; there are in fact six different sources listed. Cosmopolitan I would say is a reliable source, and probably AskMen.com as well. I agree there's a lot of original research here, but it's certainly salvageable. Powers ^T 14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete There are six different sources listed, however they may not be the best ones. I can create an article on a spinoff of psychologist fluff and dig up six primary sources. That doesn't mean anything. It's only been pointed out in several women's magazines, I would think that every single little article on spinoffs of psychological fluff that they make up would be here in an article in Wikipedia then. Why keep this one? Of the six sources, three are IGN and Askmen (those sites tend to be little more than professional forums run just by males, mind you) and TV.com. ― LADY GALAXY 16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you want books, instead? Try page 64 of ISBN 0811852121 and page 71 of ISBN 0972016619. Uncle G (talk) 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody could write a book. That still won't make it suitable for Wikipedia. I'm sure there's books on other psychological fluff that's not on Wikipedia either. ― LADY GALAXY 20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At risk of sounding pretentious, I don't think Cosmo is an authority on language, or that askmen.com is an authority on anything. If we were talking about whether or not Jane Doe was a legitimate fashion designer, I think using Cosmopolitan would be a decent reference. That aside, I think it is incredible that Ladder Theory has an entry that nobody's disputing. -- Kevin (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Why would Cosmo have to be an expert on language? The article is not primarily about the term, but about the concept. Powers ^T 23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I agree that it needs some serious cleanup, but that nobody has done so probably doesn't warrant deletion. - Headwes (talk) 04:27, 16 January 2008 (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.