Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girl drama

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; with the caveat that it made me chuckle. :-) . - Philippe 04:41, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Girl drama

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

Contested PROD. Seems to be a neologism with little notability and few to no reliable sources [Urban Dictionary doesn't count!]. RichardΩ612 17:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. "Girl drama" not significantly different from "boy drama" or [your-modifier-here]-drama. "Drama" should suffice. I can't tell if you're serious or not, since you have a talent for arguing your case, but either way this is very infrequently used and not an encyclopedia-worthy topic. I can believe you didn't know what "teen angst" means. Unfortunately, this leads me to believe that you didn't know "girl drama" until recently, either. It's recent sexist derogatory slang, not a valid phrase for bullying, and "Mean Girls" is not a good source.

• Comment First, "Mean Girls" was no where mentioned in this article! Also, my arguments for keeping this article have not violated neutrality in any way and I don't see why you should start making accusations and Personal Attacks based only on my efforts in trying to improve the content of this article and keeping it alive. I also find that your argument is not very valid in how you assume a connection between "girl drama" and "teen angst" and then draw even more accusations from the fact that I didn't know about "teen angst"! Again, I will need to emphasize that your comments and opinions are welcome as long as they refer to the content and not the author. "Girl drama" is indeed a valid and a well established phrase for "girl bullying" (which is usually more emotional and psychological than "boy bullying", and hence the term: drama) - and I am currently actively looking for reliable resources to back my claim on this term's validity. Also, I do not see any reason why this should be thought of as a "sexist derogatory term"! However, to be the Devil's advocate, even if we assume that "girl drama" is a sexist derogatory term that does not warrant for deletion according to the following wikipedia policies: WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:PROFANITY. In short, Including information about offensive material is part of Wikipedia's encyclopedic mission; being offensive is not. Jubeh (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete. This seems to me to be a pretty textbook example of a non-notable neologism that does not belong in Wikipedia. ~ mazca ^talk 17:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Maybe a neologism, but definitely a WP:DICDEF. Even if there was some reliable source, it would belong in Wiktionary if at all.--Nsevs • Talk 17:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC) without any "significant coverage in reliable sources", the article doesn't meet the general notability guideline.--Nsevs • Talk 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. Dictionary definition of a neologism citing no reliable sources. EALacey (talk) 18:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. This is not a neologism, it is a popular slang term that encompasses several aspects of girl bullying in schools and teenage relationships. Refer to Chick flick for a Wikipedia article on a similar term. Jubeh (talk) 18:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete No reliable sources. And just a note that the above argument is not considered valid per this page.. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I am trying to add more content to the article and to make it more reliable. I believe that it is not a WP:DICDEF since it can include a lot of content such as "effects on individuals/society" and "people's reactions towards girl drama". I also added several items in the "External Links" (some of them are links for books written on the subject, which can be used as references). We can use these links to expand the article (which I marked as a stub since it doesn't have much content yet). The reason why girl drama is interesting is that it relates to relational aggression, psychological abuse, bullying and also in some cases it leads to detrimental behavior and low self-esteem. For a while, I considered redirecting this article to relational aggression or bullying, however, I decided against this since it is not fully encompassed by either. I believe this article can serve as to provide information about this common cause of relational aggression and school-girl bullying as well as other aspects and issues that affect young women Jubeh (talk) 20:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• comment What is under debate here is not if such behavior exists, (I certainly wouldn't argue that point) but rather if this specific term is in widespread usage. Your sources must reflect that this term is in use to describe this type of behavior, otherwise this is original research. Beeblbrox (talk) 20:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• Delete Media-created junk term that is pretty much equivalent to teen angst. Nate • (chatter) 00:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Junk term with poor sourcing (unsurprisingly). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment I believe that I have added enough resources (in the external links section) to show that the term is popular enough to be included on wikipedia. However, I think that there are too many external links right now and I am planning to clean that section up if it is decided that this article wont get deleted. As for the claim that this term is "media-created" I have two comments on that. First, this claim has not been verified by any resources. Second, if it can be verified, then I do not see why this should qualify the article for deletion! In fact, I would suggest adding a section in the article about the origins of the term (if it proves to be traceable). Second, it seems that describing this term as a "junk term" is subjective and is not a valid argument for deletion! Also, I do not happen to know much about teen angst (I never heard of this term before) but I suggest adding a short paragraph about it in this article and mentioning its relation it to girl drama (if your claim that they are similar is actually valid). In short, many of the more recent arguments for deletion either seem to be false or provide further evidence that this article can be expanded to include the various aspects that were discussed here. I have to agree that the sourcing still needs improvement; I am working on it but I believe that deleting this article is in no way beneficial to wikipedia and also that keeping it in it's current state (with the references mainly serving as a proof of existence of the term) is not in any way harmful to wikipedia (especially with the references proving that this is not original research). I believe keeping this article can in fact prove beneficial if/when more people in the community decide to help in expanding it. In summary, I find that most of the arguments made here can be directed towards expanding/improving the article and making it fit the wikipedia standards better rather than provide a case for deletion. I would also appreciate any suggestions on how this article can be made to better fit the wikipedia standards. Jubeh (talk) 09:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I respectfully disagree with your assertion that "the references proving that this is not original research." There are two sources that meet the guidelines for a reliable source: the book, and the "Why Girls Leave Home." I don't have full text access to either of those, but judging by the abstracts, I don't see the specific term "girl drama" being used to refer to this type of behavior in any significant way, so I can't call that "significant coverage" in terms of the notability guideline. When and if the term "girl drama" is used to refer specifically to what is described here in reliable secondary sources, then the article will meet the notability guideline and be included in Wikipedia.--Nsevs • Talk 11:54, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

• Comment I find that a lot of the arguments for deletion mentioned here (especially those concerning sourcing) constitute of What Isn't Grounds for Article Deletion. I recommend following the advice mentioned in the WP:WIGAD essay rather than deleting this article. I have accordingly flagged this article for rescue. Jubeh (talk) 10:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete This term does not appear to have any validity outside of basic colloquial usage. There are other venues such as urban dictionary for individuals to discuss the significance of this term.Guildsman (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep. There are many sources available about Girl Drama to show that it should stay on wikipedia as it meets the standards and more people will expand it. The Ultimate Ruler Dude (talk) 20:45, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. Note that User: The Ultimate Ruler Dude tried to remove all 'delete' arguments from the discussion. ><RichardΩ612 20:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment - He also nominated two of my userspace pages, it was eventually found that the noms were in bad faith. After this he vandalised the userpage of User:Seicer, who closed the two MfDs. ><RichardΩ612 22:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

• Keep. Per Ruler Dude and Jubeh, notable term about girl-girl bullying. Polmorry (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - note that both User:Polmorry and User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude are accounts with no contributions beyond this AfD post. ~ mazca ^talk 21:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - note that User:Guildsman too doesn't have any contributions beyond this AfD post. Jubeh (talk) 21:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - note that in fact, both users: User:Guildsman and User:Polmorry have created their accounts after this article was created. As shown in [User creation log: Guildsman] and [User creation log: Polmorry], while User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude has created his account a few hours before this article was created as shown in [User creation log: The Ultimate Ruler Dude]. I believe that it is against wikipedia's policy to count votes of users who created their accounts after the Article/AfD was started - but I am unsure about the policy's specifics with regards to The Ultimate Ruler Dude's vote (since this user was created only a few hours earlier than the article). Nevertheless, I would like to thank User:The Ultimate Ruler Dude and User:Polmorry for supporting keeping this article, and would appreciate any help they can provide in trying to improve this article in order to make it comply with the wikipedia standards. Jubeh (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment votes are for making a cogent argument, not racking up numbers. What we are trying to do here is establish consensus as regards the notability of this term. However, votes of brand-new users with few or no other contributions are treated with skepticism, because some unscrupulous people engage in the nefarious practice of sockpuppetry. I certainly hope that is not what is going on here, but I woud also caution everyone not to make such accusations lightly, remember to assume good faith and don't bite the newcomers. Beeblbrox (talk) 23:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. Hold off on deleting it, as the article was just created on Friday. Article is flagged for rescue and sources of various quality are coming in. Someone needs to get a hold of the "Odd Girl Out" book and see if it actually contains the term "girl drama". Squidfryerchef (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. While there are a few sources, they're not particularly reliable, and I'm not convinced this is a notable neologism. Terraxos (talk) 23:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
• comment I am trying right now to look for resources on this subject at my college's library (I have only been using google so far). I am hoping to have something of significant reliability by the next couple days.Jubeh (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete, funny but only a neologism and likely to stay one. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:RS. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

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.