Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hogging (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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 01:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hogging

First afd resulted in a delete vote. db-repost tag was contested; talk page claims that new article is better written and sourced. I still say it merits a wiktionary entry at best. OhNoitsJamie^Talk 15:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as new article creator. Given that the term has been discussed in a scholarly journal, as well as had a rather lengthy essay included in a book on female obesity, it's more than worth keeping around as an article. It still needs expansion, but the article is very well sourced and should be kept. The previous AfD likely refers to this article, cached at Google. Big difference. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEMES?) 15:58, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep as it now seems to be verifiable, and Wikipedia isn't censored. It's not a dictdef because it's a social phenomenon (an unkind and uncaring one). Note: I saw this being restored in the sysop logs, and came to investigate. That's why I have moved and edited the page, and nominated the even-more-dictdef Hogging (Naval) for deletion. That nom is certainly not to make a point and I have no interest in this practice, in fact I think it's pretty deplorable! Thank you and goodnight. --kingboyk 16:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep - article is cited, Wiktionary inclusion criteria is very grey, so best keep here IMHO --Tawker 16:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep. As much as I hate articles on minor social phenomena, at least this one has reliable sources. It's still a neologism, though, and I have serious doubts that it will grow. For the record, I proposed speedy deletion on a version of this without sources, which was, I think, the proper thing to do, given that it failed a previous AfD. I wouldn't have proposed it for deletion if I'd seen sources. Brian G. Crawford 16:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep per above. The phenomenon surely is notable. Is this term for it sufficiently established, though? Mangojuice 17:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak keep, barely notable neologism. Needs more detail to distinguish it from fat fetishism (this seems to be about targeting obese women for their perceived emotional vulnerability rather than their body shape itself). — AKADriver ☎ 21:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, not convinced we've hit enough WP:RSs to merit a repost on this neologism. Deizio 22:52, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move hogging is an engineering term, see my post on the following AfD. porges 23:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
• keep as per Badlydrawnjeff. Pete.Hurd 04:31, 30 April 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.