Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man flu (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, given the strength of argument, and the direction in which the discussion headed as it neared closing. Xoloz (talk) 15:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Man flu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Completing improperly placed nom by User:Psinu Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Useless addition of ages-old old wives' tale in a new package. This is the third nomination for deletion, plus it relies on a laddie mag as a reference... those two in themselves tell you enough to make up your mind, I think.. Psinu 00:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hope that editors will read the article and see the actual citations, rather than rely upon your rather inaccurate summary. Uncle G 02:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Read 'em. Still dumb. Wiktionary, maybe, even probably (given some of the arguments that came after mine). Wikipedia? Nope. Psinu 17:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, some of the sources seem legit enough to me, even if it is an "old wives tale". Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:48, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I don't see how this is important, encyclopedic. Yes, some of the sources appear to be legitimate, however the stories in those aren't of proper tone, they seem to be of a comical sense. I have to agree with User:Jules1975 in the previous AfD, when s/he said it would be better suited for Uncyclopedia. - Rjd0060 00:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete then Redirect to Human flu. I'm concerned about the problematic sources as well but if more sources can be produced, I think it would deserve a culture section on the parent article--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:04, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Human flu. Its a term in common use, but only as a joke. As others have said make it a redirect to Flu or Wiktionary. The current content is just a definition. The sources are based on small magazine surveys, not medical research. MortimerCat (talk) 07:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or Redirect. If it's a commonly used term with published material then it should be kept. However, inclusion of this 'culture' item would also work well as part of Human flu, as per Lenticel's vote. Billscottbob 01:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Nominator seems to think that the fact that his nomination is the third such is a reason to delete. It isn't. As the article has been through two previous AFDs, he needs to bring something new to the table before going over this again. 86.136.83.63 07:55, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What makes you say that? Considering that the nom's statement was that he was completing a dangling nom, and then he voted weak keep himself, that tells me the exact opposite of what you seem to observe on the part of the nom. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Human flu. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 08:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, for crying out loud. I don't care where or how the information is kept, but those people asking for deletion seem to be missing the point somewhere along the line. They seem to be ignoring the goal and nature of an encyclopedia anyone can edit and instead are focusing on a series of words held in a computer database they believe are set in stone. Whatever is of use in this article, use it. And use it where it is best used. And amend this part of the database accordingly. The scope here is the sum of human knowledge. We can spend all day throwing things out, but it would be better to consider the grand scheme, and try and fit all the bits and pieces in their rightful places. I don't want to be here in twenty years time looking for that last blue piece of sky someone threw out because we had enough blue. Hiding T 10:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with the last comment. This is not a medical dictionary but an encylopedia of all things. Redirecting it to human flu only gives it some more credibility. Man flu is a term commonly used in a light-hearted way to describe varying strains of colds, bugs etc and not a medical definition. I suspect in 5 years time when "man-flu" is still in common use, it would look a bit odd if Wiki didn't cover it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.154.180.10 (talk) 16:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but the article sure can stand to have some more info added to it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, valid social phenomenon even if medically dodgy. The article could stand some better indication of this context. --Dhartung | Talk 23:16, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Gets quite a few recent Google news hits [1]. RMHED (talk) 03:06, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect, at best a neologism Mbisanz (talk) 15:20, 13 December 2007 (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.