Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (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 of the debate was keep. – Robert 23:46, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dictionary definition. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Boatfarm 01:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Article could be updated, but, yes it is a dictionary article--Strothra 01:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless completely rewritten to look more like an encyclopedia entry rather than a dictionary entry. Royboycrashfan 02:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article is currently a list of dictionary definitions. CheckerBoard 02:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. There is nothing wrong with this page, which goes well beyond a dicdef and includes cultural aspects that can obviously be expanded. I also note that the nom joined wikipedia in the last 2 hours and has made no productive edits, but did find time to vandalize the fool page. [1]. -- JJay 02:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Also note that this page has been nominated twice before and the last time looks to be a near unanimous keep Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Girlfriend_(2nd_nomination). -- JJay 02:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does either fact have any bearing on the merits of the nomination? I don't see how. A dicdef is a dicdef regardless of when Boatfarm signed up for an account. RGTraynor 16:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• My vote stands. Anytime I see someone join wikipedia just to vandalise a page and nominate an article on AfD I vote speedy keep. I'll reserve AGF for non-vandal, non-puppet accounts. -- JJay 18:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmm. I hope you don't mind if by contrast I base my votes on the merits of the argument and the evidence presented. RGTraynor 21:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no contrast as my vote is based on the merits of the argument and evidence presented. Hence the first sentence I wrote concerning the cultural angle and expandability. I just add speedy to the keep to reflect the vandal/sock puppet aspects. -- JJay 21:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Doesn't give any more information than dictionaries already give, or if it does it's very minor. This doesn't look like an encyclopedia article to me. 152.163.100.203 02:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: anon vote -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete dicdef.--Zxcvbnm 02:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep, agree with JJay, bad faith nomination, see above links -- Samir (the scope) 03:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Is a dicdef, and I can't imagine ever being much more than original research. Also, if I understand AfD correctly, once there is a delete vote, there cannot be a speedy keep, yes? ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 04:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep More than a dictionary definition. Golfcam 04:07, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep It only barely goes beyond a dictionary definition. If kept, it should (and, I believe, could) be expanded majorly. Furthermore, I think it is essential to the boyfriend, marriage, significant other, etc. group. Jesuschex 04:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I don't see a reason for this to exist since wikipedia isn't a dictionary. It doesn't go beyond the definition of the word, too. Sheehan (Talk) 04:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Merecat 06:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand. Important phenomenon that must be treated thoroughly to help readers understand twentieth- and twenty-first century mating habits in Western (and several other) cultures. David Sneek 07:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Chambers defines girlfriend as "sweetheart, or girl who is often one's companion: (girl friend) a girl's young female friend;". This article goes into rather more detail, though it could say more. --David.Mestel 07:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Checkerboard - come to think of it why do we still have boyfriend which is similar in nature? - Glen ^T _C 08:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Even though the current article is insufficient, this is a valid and expandable topic. "Girlfriends" and "boyfriends" are concepts which can only exist in a specific type of society, and not, for instance, in a society where sexes are raised separately from a certain age and all marriages are arranged. I am convinced that there are anthropologists or sociologists who have studied this type of relationship, and that the article can be expanded. u p p l a n d 09:11, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Speedy Keep. Certainly encyclopaedia material. This is a cultural phenomena. It's a dicdef in current state, but that's reason to expand, not delete. Loom91 09:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - borderline encyclopedic. Metamagician3000 10:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Clearly a notable topic, even if the current article is somewhat skimpy. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 10:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, definitely notable topic, expand, encyclopaedic. --Terence Ong 12:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Uppland et. al. Smerdis of Tlön 13:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep would like to see more discussion of cultural impact of the use of the term particularly in different countries around the world Tyhopho 15:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and expand: the article doesn't mention "girlfriend" as non-sexual female friend among women, as it is also used. More than a dicdef. ProhibitOnions 15:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Dicdef or not, it's an important article. Should be expanded, not deleted, as deleting it will only invite someone to come along and recreate it, losing all the work that's already been put into it. Qleem 20:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Fishhead64 20:59, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, just because it is currently a dicdef (and it is barely just a dicdef) does not mean that it will stay a dicdef, and the topic is obviously both notable and encyclopedic. —Cuiviénen, Tuesday, 11 April 2006 @ 22:05 (UTC)
• Speedy keep or she'll kill me. Just kidding. Maintenance is never a reason to delete an article; there is no doubt (in my mind at least) that this can become a decent page. Isopropyl 22:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important article. DarthVader 22:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve; definitely potential for culturally significant, encyclopedic expansion. MCB 05:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. More than just a dictdef; for example, the Japanese stuff was interesting and informative. -Colin Kimbrell 19:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Has extra information on cultural diferences (eg: Japanese info). Should be more fleshed out however. Royrules22 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.-- 陈鼎翔 ^说!贡献 Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 10:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Gary Kirk (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Significant other. -zappa 18:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Royboycrash. Freddie 01:53, 15 April 2006 (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.