Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddlebuddy

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:37, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cuddlebuddy

Cuddlebuddy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article has no sources and feels like original research. Neither of the external links uses the term cuddlebuddy, or even buddy; and the more encyclopedic of the two external links doesn't use the word cuddle either. Vicarious 06:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, this article was attached to the afd for cuddle party at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cuddle party; the consensus was to keep cuddle party and a few votes to merge cuddlebuddy into it, although the comments on the cuddlebuddy talk page seem to disapprove of the merge and I think there's very little good content in this article to merge anyway. Vicarious 06:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as WP:OR. Alternatively, redirect to cuddle party but there's nothing there to merge that's not original research. Arkyan 16:59, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. Article needs to be sourced, not deleted. Mystache 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - The argument that an article needs to be sourced is not a good reason to keep it. If you believe an article should be kept because it can be sourced, then by all means source it and the issue is resolved. One cannot simply argue to keep an article expecting someone else is going to eventually get around to citing sources. The sources either exist or they do not, and this article has had sufficient time to be sourced. No one has done so thus far, and if no one will by the time this AFD has run its course it shoudl be deleted. Arkyan 22:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - Sounds like original research, No sources could be found when looking for them. A quote from the second paragraph of Wikipedia:Attribution, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Latulla 23:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete - WP:ATT /Blaxthos 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
• Weak delete: It's 1) a dicdef but doesn't add anything to 'cuddle' and 'buddy' separately, and anyway 2) the meaning described is limited geographically. (Where I live it definitely does mean something beyond non-sexual cuddle.) Peter Grey 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. The problem lies in the fact that it's a cultural phenomenon that has been largely ignored by mainstream media or other "reliable secondary sources." . . . Crap. I may have just argued myself into admitting that there aren't going to be any sources, and encyclopedically, we have to wait until there are. But I still want to keep it. Maybe we can find some sources. There might even be some about it being more sexual than non-sexual. I have to go to bed now, though.—Carolfrog 10:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Keep like a previous user said, it needs sourcing, not blasting. It's a topic that needs addressing - I'd never heard of it because I'd never really tried defining a relationship of that sort. SMC 11:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
• Delete The article has been up since 2005, that's plenty of time to find sources (unless of course there ARE no sources). No sources = no article. Pax:Vobiscum 23:11, 10 March 2007 (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.