Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kept woman

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 redirect to mistress (lover).--SB | T 04:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kept woman

Previous speedy nomination as "empty" and "dicdef". Doesn't quite meet speedy criteria (see talk page). Converting to AFD for community consensus. — ERcheck (talk) 11:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect to Mistress (lover) would seem to make more sense. -- Whpq 12:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef which could never be expanded. I disagree with the redirect idea, as a "kept woman" is not necessarily a "mistress". It would make just as much sense to redirect it to wife, which I also think is a bad idea. -- Kicking222 12:15, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as dicdef. Already at wiktionary. Yomangani^talk 12:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per above, dicdef. PJM 12:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, definitely a dicdef and nothing more. Emeraude 12:28, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Whpq is right. According to Martin Montgomery (1995-12-01). An Introduction to Language and Society. United Kingdom: Routledge, 230. ISBN 0415072387. , "mistress" and "kept woman" are now largely synonymous. There's plenty to say on the subject, too. According to Philippa Levine (2003-07-04). Prostitution, Race and Politics. United Kingdom: Routledge, 301. ISBN 0415944465. , for example, the Commissioner of Police in Bombay was once instructed not to register kept women as prostitutes.

  Since the further reading is useful, merge these duplicate articles. Uncle G 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

• Merge as per Uncle G Bwithh 14:16, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 14:45, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mistress (lover) and delete per Uncle G. In my experience, "merge" closings end up never been acted upon, and thus are no different than "keep"s. --Aaron 17:25, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• As the dicdef already exists at Wiktionary, merge per Uncle G and redirect and delete per Aaron. Alba 17:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• Merge per Uncle G --dannycas 22:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
• The article as-is is POV inherently, in that it assumes this is an appropriate title for this phenomenon/category of person. To make it NPOV would be to rewrite it about the term "kept woman", but then this would be a dicdef and would also be inappropriate. Retitling it to a neutral title would require moving it to "Mistress". Thus, delete and redirect to Mistress (lover) is the best course. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete or Delete and create redirect to Mistress (lover). Nothing to merge. --Calton | Talk 06:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete this article and redirect "Kept woman" to Mistress (lover), as above. Mistress (lover) seems to be a good article and I don't see anything in "Kept woman" that is worth merging. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Mistress (lover) although there are "kept" people (i.e. voluntarily taken care of by others) who are not lovers. That concept needs to be documented, but not necessarily via such a loaded term. Samatva 21:30, 3 October 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.