Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Side hug

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. No prejudice towards a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Side hug

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Afd:Terminology is largely a neologism from a satirical rap song, does not appear in dictionaries, and no reliable sources suggest otherwise. TricksterWolf (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is fully attested by the reliable sources in the article. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are adequate enough to cover GNG concerns.LM2000 (talk) 17:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the nominator, and I can't understand how these sources here are reliable for "side-hug", as none of them are actually about "side-hugging". They're all references to a satirical YouTube rap video. If these are the sources, the page should be about the rap video, not about a neologism coined by the rap video.
Of the seven sources, three are missing any reference to side-hug (or are bad links); three are from a single feminist blog (or directly copied from it); and one is a newspaper article. Every source is about the YouTube rap video "Christian side hug", and every source is satirical. How does any of this validate a neologism? TricksterWolf (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no real existence. See the alleged sources. --Bejnar (talk) 23:35, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't believe types of hugs are really credible enough to need an encyclopaedia entry. The sources listed don't really establish credibility and most of them deal with an irrelevant rap song. Bailmoney27 ^talk 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hug. The article doesn't have enough information to warrant it's own article, but the topic is real and there is content worthy of a merge. --50.124.106.22 (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 16:59, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Tough more references are required but the page seems worth keeping, merge is also a viable option. Rafaelgriffin (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Hug. Really not sure the youtube rap video worthy of mention in the article, but you could at least have a brief mention of "side hug" in the hug article. I am aware of this practice's prominence within the Evangelical abstinence movement, but if that's the reason we're keeping it, it could just as easily be merged to another related article. I feel like a tourist (talk) 17:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Never heard it called a "side hug" before, but the topic seems to be rather notable.--Coin945 (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep Agree with Rafaelgriffin Jed 20012 (talk) 23:12, 18 January 2014 (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.