Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man flu (2nd nomination)
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 was No consensus. Cbrown1023 talk 02:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Man flu
Second nomination, first vote was to delete, but recreated. Neologism. *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 15:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- We have both Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Flu and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man flu. Appears not to apply, as second was purposefully a joke, and first was taken not-seriously. However, there is some coverage: [1]; whether it's notable or not it another question. I ask people to take this afd seriously and not call for g4, as circumstances are not the same. Part Deux 16:06, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Counting Google hits is not research. A page of search results does not demonstrate that there is coverage. Citations of actual articles documenting the subject demonstrates that there is coverage. Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Flu does not cover the second article by that title that was deleted (whose deletion is not recorded in the deletion log). That article cited this. Uncle G 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I wasn't citing the google hits, which is why I didn't say keep. I was saying that I wasn't sure it was the same afd, so not to call for g4 without doing research first. Part Deux 16:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Counting Google hits is not research. A page of search results does not demonstrate that there is coverage. Citations of actual articles documenting the subject demonstrates that there is coverage. Note also that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man Flu does not cover the second article by that title that was deleted (whose deletion is not recorded in the deletion log). That article cited this. Uncle G 16:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete More suitable for Uncyclopedia in my view Jules1975 17:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Keep This is a well known cultural term. The article needs to be expanded with more sources and some references, perhaps an expand category for a while, then delete. LordHarris 22:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Transwiki to Wiktionary - this is more their thing than ours and probably is a common enough term (albeit fairly new) to deserve an entry. Grutness...wha? 04:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Delete/Transwiki. Dicdef, so doesn't belong here. WMMartin 15:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep This is a well known phrase especially in the UK. If it could be expanded more which could easily be done then it would be a suitable article linked to the main flu article. --PrincessBrat 12:51, 23 February 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.
