Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend (0th nomination): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 10:11, 3 December 2017

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep

Girlfriend

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --fvw * 05:33, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)

I think it is a bit more than a dictionary entry, but if not, why not put it on Wiktionary:Girlfriend? Brianjd
Keep: More than dicdef, complements the article on Boyfriend nicely. (how ironic?) Wifki 07:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep agree with Wifki - Drstuey 13:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Another example of the deletion mania, making everybody lose time on futile debates. --Pgreenfinch 13:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- You only lose time if you spend time on a page you hate and enter comments designed to rile people up. Geogre 14:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - Oops, I'm so sorry I hurted you about the page you love. What about a deletefriend article ? ;-)). --Pgreenfinch 16:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, not just a word. --Hemanshu 18:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. This expands on the Wiktionary definition in a way that Wiktionary can't. --Idont Havaname 18:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep; too expandible just to consign to the Wiktionary. Samaritan 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep, as with boyfriend. -Sean Curtin 23:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Incorrectly listed. Dr Zen 00:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep it. Fvw is batting about 50/50 this week. —[[User:Radman1|RaD Man (talk)]] 05:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Already listed in Wiktionary. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Delete. Rossami (talk) 01:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Have you read the comments above? This article definitely contains more than what is currently in Wiktionary. Brianjd 07:21, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
Keep, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this article is beyond the scope of a dictionary. --[[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 20:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Keep. Article as it stands isn't great, but I can't see how it's not encyclopedic. After all, why have an entry for marriage when we can just Wiktionary-link it? Lacrimosus 04:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete most of it: This article (apart from the sentence on the film) is nothing more than the definition and usage of a word. It belongs in a dictionary. Surely we can find more information on the film? Brianjd 05:34, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
Keep, as Hemanshu already brought up the "topic is encyclopedic, not just a word." -- Crevaner 10:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep - Good points already mentioned above! -- Old Right 11:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Transwiki, merge, and redirect, or expand. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We should have articles about the topic itself, not about a word. Either change the article to describe what a girlfriend is, rather than how the term girlfriend is used, or redirect somewhere (like relationship or something). anthony 警告 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete This article may have more words than the Wiktionary entry, but it still is nothing more than the definition and usage of a word. The Wiktionary entry gives the same information, just more concise. --L. Pistachio 03:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Keep and remove listing from WP:DA too. --Key45 01:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+<div class="boilerplate metadata vfd" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 0 auto; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
-===[[Girlfriend]] and [[Boyfriend]]===
+This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. '''This page is no longer live.''' Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. <br >The result of the debate was '''keep'''
-This article referrs to the female equivilant of a non-marital romantic spouse; this calls for a request of business: also, the same [[VfD]] votes for this article apply to the [[boyfriend]] article --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 14:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+===[[Girlfriend]]===
-*'''Redirect''' and '''merge''' to [[non-marital romantic spouse]]; same with [[boyfriend]]. --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+[[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. --[[User:Fvw|fvw]][[User Talk:fvw|<SMALL>*</SMALL>]] 05:33, 2004 Nov 28 (UTC)
-*How did this happen?? I studied this Vfd and I got that an article got put back on Vfd after a while of being kept. '''No vote''' right now, this is just a question. [[User:Georgia guy|Georgia guy]] 00:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+* I think it is a bit more than a dictionary entry, but if not, why not put it on [[Wiktionary:Girlfriend]]? [[User:Brianjd|Brianjd]]
-*This has already been [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Girlfriend&oldid=11573743 voted on]. [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Boyfriend&oldid=11573793 So has boyfriend]. Both discussions have been blanked; I'm not sure of the method to fix this. I have also completed the incompletely done VFD nomination. --[[User:SPUI|SPUI]] ([[User talk:SPUI|talk]]) 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+* Keep: More than dicdef, complements the article on [[Boyfriend]] nicely. (how ironic?) [[User:Wifki|Wifki]] 07:13, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-**(reply to message above}: there is no sense salvaging a VfD list from a previous VfD iteration for the same article because it would be superfluous.  And besides, people will think that VfD votes from 2 iterations would be part of 1. --[[User:SamuraiClinton|TheSamurai]] 02:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' agree with [[User:Wifki|Wifki]] - [[User:Drstuey|Drstuey]] 13:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
-*'''Keep'''. I will repeat the reasons that were said in the previous VFD:  They are well written encyclopedia articles on topics that are well beyond the scope of a dictionary. [[User:Zzyzx11|Zzyzx11]] 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
+* Keep. Another example of the deletion mania, making everybody lose time on futile debates. --[[User:Pgreenfinch|Pgreenfinch]] 13:08, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+**You only lose time if you spend time on a page you hate and enter comments designed to rile people up. [[User:Geogre|Geogre]] 14:58, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+***Oops, I'm so sorry I hurted you about the page you love. What about a  [[deletefriend]] article ? ;-)). --[[User:Pgreenfinch|Pgreenfinch]] 16:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+* Keep. Topic is encyclopedic, not just a word. --[[User:Hemanshu|Hemanshu]] 18:12, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+* '''Keep'''.  This expands on the Wiktionary definition in a way that Wiktionary can't. --[[User:Idont havaname|Idont Havaname]] 18:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''; too expandible just to consign to the Wiktionary. [[User:Samaritan|Samaritan]] 22:54, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+*Keep, as with [[boyfriend]].  -[[User:Gtrmp|Sean Curtin]] 23:05, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Keep'''. Incorrectly listed. [[User:Dr Zen|Dr Zen]] 00:18, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''' it.  Fvw is batting about 50/50 this week.  &mdash;[[User:Radman1|[[en:RaD Man|'''RaD Man''']] ([[User_talk:Radman1|''talk'']])]] 05:49, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+* Already listed in Wiktionary.  [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]]. Delete.  [[User:Rossami|Rossami]] [[User talk:Rossami|(talk)]] 01:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+* Have you read the comments above? This article definitely contains more than what is currently in Wiktionary. [[User:Brianjd|Brianjd]] 07:21, 2004 Nov 30 (UTC)
+* '''Keep''', because [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary|Wikipedia is not a dictionary]] and this article is beyond the scope of a dictionary. --[[User:GRider|[[User:GRider|GRider]]\<sup>[[User_talk:GRider|talk]]</sup>]] 20:51, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Keep.''' Article as it stands isn't great, but I can't see how it's not encyclopedic. After all, why have an entry for [[marriage]] when we can just Wiktionary-link it? [[User:Lacrimosus|Lacrimosus]] 04:30, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Delete most of it:''' This article (apart from the sentence on the film) is nothing more than the definition and usage of a word. It belongs in a dictionary. Surely we can find more information on the film? [[User:Brianjd|Brianjd]] 05:34, 2004 Dec 1 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''', as [[User:Hemanshu|Hemanshu]] already brought up the "topic is encyclopedic, not just a word." -- [[User:Crevaner|Crevaner]] 10:12, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' - Good points already mentioned above! -- [[User:Old Right|Old Right]] 11:39, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
+*Transwiki, merge, and redirect, or expand.  Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  We should have articles about the topic itself, not about a word.  Either change the article to describe what a girlfriend is, rather than how the term girlfriend is used, or redirect somewhere (like relationship or something). [[User:Anthony DiPierro|anthony]] [[User:Anthony_DiPierro/warning|&#35686;&#21578;]] 12:47, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
+* '''Delete'''  This article may have more words than the Wiktionary entry, but it still is nothing more than the definition and usage of a word.  The Wiktionary entry gives the same information, just more concise. --[[User:Lord Pistachio|L. Pistachio]] 03:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
+*'''Keep''' and remove listing from [[WP:DA]] too. --[[User:Key45|Key45]] 01:25, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
+This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. '''Please do not edit this page'''.
+</div >