Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mancation (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 was keep. - Mailer Diablo 21:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mancation (2nd nomination)

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

This thing has been speedied 7 times as various forms of nonsense and spam for a tour/vacationi company and as a non-notable neologism. It's also been through a previous AfD, which was closed speedy-delete. And now it popped up on my watchlist again. I nuked some clear nonsense content including a seemingly-bad-faith ref in support of notability of the term. This is a procedural nom, let's clear the air once and for all about the notability and WP-suitability of this thing. DMacks 01:00, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh Good Lord - it actually has references! Does anyone have access to Lexis or something to verify these references as actually existing? --Haemo 01:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The sources really exist. This article was honestly written for a completely unbiased school project. The entry is not a neologism as it is a trend in business. The 2009 movie is also worthy of noting. --Abcgal83 01:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Delete WP:NEO. JuJube 01:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep; god help me, those sources actually do check out. I wouldn't be heartbroken to see it cut down & booted over to Wiktionary; it's too long for a dictionary article as it stands but I think it would fit more comfortably there. And I fervently hope I will never actually meet the kind of man who'd actually go on one of these. And I really don't want to know what "sexual reawakening" involves - given that it's an all male group, is it a polite way to say "hang out in strip clubs"? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 01:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep; i checked as well... the sources do check out, and as this is well-researched, has legitimate sources, and is merely just an entry made for an unbiased school project that appears to be based on hard facts, I say keep it HartfordWhaler 13:50, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, a horrible neologism, but sourceable. Needs to be rewritten. There are numerous sources on Google News Archive. It should be pointed out that the "Larry" actually exists, owns the domain mancation.com, and promotes himself as the coiner. --Dhartung | Talk 04:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stoic atarian 07:52, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment. The nom does not assert that the present page should be deleted. DMacks 14:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep sourcing looks pretty solid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep Has some refs, and abit more than a dicdef, even though it sounds like something from a Seinfeld episode. Edison 17:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Needs serious wikification & some cleanup, but the sources are good (except for one that wouldn't let me open it with Camino for no apparent reason. Abcgal83 did a good job with the basics so let's keep it and see where it, and she, goes from here. She and classmates could become valuable editors. KrakatoaKatie 12:52, 16 May 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.