Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer (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 delete, i transfered the info to wikinary. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 20:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - a couple of months after the conclusion of the first AFD, in which it was earnestly asserted that this article could easily be expanded into more than a dictionary definition, the article remains a dictionary definition. Its "sources" are novels and biographies that use the word "womanizer" in the title, its "reference" is a page out of thesaurus and its "external links" are two journal articles (inaccessible without a subscription) that again mention the word in the title and a random article about Martin Luther King in which he was supposedly called a womanizer by somebody's teacher. The article has been given more than enough time to show improvement and no improvement has been made. Otto4711 19:42, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and redir. to Promiscuity. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it a) passed an AfD already, b) has multiple references and external links, and c) is a familiar term and therefore definitely encylcopedic. If anything, just expand the discussion with more textual examples and perhaps an image or two of a classical example of such an idividual. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles 00:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. On the day the first AfD ended with keep, the nominator deleted wikilinked examples of fictional womanizers with edit summary "removed all unsourced or POV/OR information" [1] Is a reference section stating the source required when the main text says which work it is from? Some of them may be unsourced for the actual word "womanizer", but most of them seem uncontroversial to me when the plots (with more details in wikilinked articles) are considered and it's fictional people. PrimeHunter 01:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Response - yes, sources are required, just like for any other article. I noted in the first AFD that the information was unsourced OR/POV but didn't remove it in the course of the AFD. When the AFD closed, I removed the OR. Not seeing what the problem is or what bearing it has on this discussion. Otto4711 13:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The reason it looks more like a dicdef now than in the first AfD is that you removed that material, for example the sentence "Ariel Levy reports in Female Chauvinist Pigs that women are also now being referred to as players if they treat sex in a similar manner to male players." The text gives author and title of book with wikilinks on both. Deleting it as "unsourced" because the author and book is not repeated in a "references" section seems odd to me. It's unfortunate that nobody has come along to improve the article (and I don't have the will to do it), but I think the topic is clearly notable and the article had sufficient stub content before. I don't know the removed works well so I don't personally want to add them back (with titles repeated in a references section), when I cannot vouch for what the article says about them. By the way, several of the wikilinked fictional characters have articles calling them womanizers. Are you also going to delete the word "womanizer" from James Bond (character) if no reliable source using that exact word is given in the references? PrimeHunter 17:04, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, a good reason to remove the sentence you quote would be that it does not appear to be about the subject of the article from which it was removed, which is "Womanizer." Even if it were, in the absence of reliable sources in the article that state that a female player is a womanizer (or even the equivalent of a womanizer) then the assertion made by including it in the article constitutes a previously unpublished synthesis of previously published works, or in other words, original research. I note that you edited this article no fewer than five times after I made my edit (including reverting an edit back to my reduced version). I can't fathom why, if you found my action so objectionable, you would not have sought to restore the material during one of those many edits. Your unfamiliarity with the various works mentioned in the excised materials would seem to be an argument in favor of removing the material in the absence of sources. You could certainly have raised an objection to the deletion on the talk page. Instead, you apparently accepted the change without comment until such time as raising it became useful.
• Regardless, with that material or without, it does not change the fact that this article is a dictionary definition. A dictionary definition with examples is still a dictionary definition. Otto4711 19:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete as dicdef, although there's potential for expansion here for an actual encyclopedia article discussing the characteristics of such "womanizers" instead of a mere collection of trivia stuck on.-h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 09:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; nothing more than a dictionary definition. Furthermore, it would be difficult to expand because "womanizer" is a derogatory term, so including information on living persons would be nearly impossible, and fictional information would be purely subjective. - Chardish 12:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• N Delete and redirect to Promiscuity. Possibly transwiki to Wiktionary. Previous passing of an AFD does not automatically mean Keep. Articles and policies change, not to mention consensus. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and as this article does not provide any information beyond what constitutes a womanizer, it is simply a dictionary-like entry. VanTucky ^(talk) 22:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of sexuality and gender-related deletions. —PrimeHunter 23:19, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a dicdef.-- danntm ^T _C 01:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to Player (dating) or philanderer and expand. This is a legit encyclopedic topic, but womanizer is too narrow and forces a dicdef article. A Casanova, a Don Juan, a lady's man, a lady-killer, a wolf, a man on the make, a skirt chaser, a playboy, a flirt, Lothario, Prince Charming, Romeo, a lech or lecher, playgirl. This topic has a rich history, predominantly from literature and culture. ZueJay (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The two suggested move targets both redirect to this article. I am unclear as to why an article about people who are promiscuous needs to exist separate from the article on promiscuity. Otto4711 19:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed, I'm aware that those two articles redirect to Womanizer; I feel that they are more appropriate titles for the topic contained within the Womanizer article - they're more general. And I'm not totally convinced that someone who's a Player is necessarily Promiscuous - it really depends on your definitions of these terms. I'll need to think about that some more. ZueJay (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (but not necessarily with this name). Notable subject with neglected article does not require deletion. I have finally expanded it some (sufficient for stub) and added some references, although it feels redundant when the reference only says what is already in the text. PrimeHunter 02:34, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, redirect to Promiscuity and transwiki to Wiktionary, as per User:VanTucky. — OwenBlacker 11:53, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 16:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep highly notable term.--Sefringle^Talk 21:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The fact of this being a notable term is not a reason to keep, because notable terms are made into unacceptable dicdef. articles all the time. This article is simply a dictionary-like definition and a few cultural examples. The only possible expansion is for a longer and largely trivial list of examples of womanizers. So not only is this now a simple dicdef. but it has the distinct potential to become a nasty trivia dumping-ground. VanTucky ^(talk) 21:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, or merge, or tranwikify to Promiscuity. Bearian 19:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I thought this article would have been better by now and it still lacks sufficient information. Perhaps integrating and redirecting the content to Promiscuity may very well be needed here. Deleting it would be bad, as the information and sources would be lost. Lord Sesshomaru
• Merge with Promiscuity and take Rake (character) with it. I started a Male Promiscuity section on that article with a bit of content from both. I think it fits the topic, although quality of content could be improved.

Canuckle 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - it is a term; not an topic. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:46, 14 July 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.