Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daddy’s girl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was No consensus, so keep. However, since most keeps were dependent on expanding an article that apparently can't be expanded, I have no objections to a re-AfD in the near future. --Deathphoenix 15:30, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Daddy’s girl

colloquialism, not a sociological term, best left in the wiktionary Ginar 02:24, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Transwiki to Wikitionary. — TheKMantalk 06:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep- potential for expansion. Astrotrain 10:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Ginar says that this article cannot be expanded. You say that it can, but don't provide anything, either here or in the article, to support that bald assertion. To convince Ginar and Last Malthusian, please cite some sources to show that the potential for expansion into a non-stub article exists here. Uncle G 17:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep but total rewrite needed! Jcuk 11:03, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Using what as sources? You can convince Ginar and Last Malthusian by showing what sources a complete rewrite can be based upon. Uncle G 17:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and expand. --Terence Ong 13:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • comment there is no opportunity for expansion here. There is no sociological research and I highly doubt there's any psychology research. Just because its a common term doesn't mean it can be an article. Maybe somebody here could suggest how it might be expanded?
    • I see a lot of terms like this that are simply terms but that people suggest could be expanded. This term will never be expanded Ginar 14:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ginar unless someone actually expands it, or at least comes up with some reliable sources to do it with. --Malthusian (talk) 14:12, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary Delete, per Ginar and Ncsaint. --^demon 17:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per Ginar. Since the artical has no merit in it's present form, why bother sending it to Wiktionary? If someone wants to start such an entry there, they can. Ncsaint 18:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete unless it can be expanded into something much better (which I doubt). OhnoitsJamieTalk 21:29, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki Transwiki to Wikitionary anything useful ComputerJoe 21:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • keep. Best term for notable thing; 1.5 million google hits for "daddy's girl" and "daddy's little girl" combined. (Compare jailbait for an example of a similar colloquialism being expanded into a sourced article). IMO burden is not on the keep voters to expand the article, though this article could obviously stand to be improved. Brighterorange 22:21, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
    • The burden is on the keep voters to back up their bald assertions that the article can be expanded. Uncle G 02:50, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to Wiktionary as a bare term. --James S. 23:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete dicdef. It should be an article, and the deletion of this definition does not preclude the later creation of a good article if someone wants to do it and source it well. Ziggurat 23:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep It's in Category:Stock characters and forms part of wikipedia's coverage of film and theatre. Merchbow 02:38, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Articles need to stand on their own merits, not due to being propped up by others. Delete per nom. --Agamemnon2 06:47, 25 January 2006 (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.