Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend zone (3rd 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. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- Friend zone (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Defines a term. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If it were a real topic it wouldn't be a notable one that anybody has covered in a serious manner — TheBilly(Talk) 12:12, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to or merge with Unrequited love. The term is probably not notable in itself, but it may be used widely enough that it deserves a mention in the main article on this subject. Incidentally, I've never seen it before as two separate words: in my experiences it's either "friendzone" or "friendship zone". &dorno rocks. (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:N - significant coverage in reliable sources both in the article, and per sources cited at the last AfD. Nominator does not appear to have actually read WP:DICTIONARY or undertaken WP:BEFORE. (A review of the last AfD reveals a "no consensus" result based on some extremely shonky arguments from both sides.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:24, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, culturally significant concept. Everyking (talk) 23:36, 20 April 2010 (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.