Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womanizer

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 Keep --Steve (Stephen) talk 00:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Womanizer

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

Numbered entries by Nominator - To outline a less then simple AfD nomination. Nominator withdrawing AfD request and asking for speedy close. Addhoc found a more then suitable reference. Jeepday (talk) 13:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  1. The article has been unreferenced since Dec 2005, and fail WP:V
  2. The article passes WP:N with over 750,000 ghits
  3. None of the first 100 ghits offer more then a dictionary entry so there is little hope it can ever pass WP:V with WP:RS
  4. The article is little more then a Dictionary entry and a list so it fails WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_dictionary
  5. The article has about 120 incoming wikilinks
  6. Both womanizer and philanderer are well described at Wiktionary already so transwiki to there is done
  7. The article was prodded and de-prodded relevant communications can be found in the articles history, User_talk:PrimeHunter#Womanizer and User_talk:Jeepday#Womanizer

I can't see this article every passing WP:NOT or WP:V Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Nominator vote Delete and categorize Jeepday (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete -- no evidence that this is a noteworthy topic. Goldfritha 03:48, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, if we can have an article on both types of wife beater, we can manage one on this significant cultural topic. I don't think straight google is the place to find sources, try Google News Archive and Google Books for a better basis of a cultural article. Not only is this a social phenomenon, it's also a literary one. The womanizer/Casanova/rake has a longstanding place in drama and poetry. (He's never gotten much respect in Puritan America, though!). I think this is an important and encyclopedic topic that should be saved. --Dhartung | Talk 04:11, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep. References exist, even though they have not been added. More than a dicdef. Obviously an encyclopedic topic. --- RockMFR 04:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - Don't even understand how someone could thikn this is worthy of deletion. It could be a lot better, yes, and perhaps could use a better name (Womanizing?) and might even have something out there already tthat could be merged with, but the topic is definitely encyclopedic. If the article isn't that's a failure of the editors and not the article. DreamGuy 09:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep - google books returns sufficient viable sources. Addhoc 13:05, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment To the keep votes above, I had this same conversation with User_talk:PrimeHunter and my response remains Per WP:V#Burden_of_evidence If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it and The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Material that is challenged or likely to be challenged. In this case I did not remove the content I submitted it for deletion. Find a single encyclopedic worthy reference, add it to the article and I will withdraw my AfD request. WP:V is clear The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. I have looked and did not find a single reference that would support an article that will pass WP:NOT#DICT. Jeepday (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain why the reference I added isn't acceptable? Addhoc 13:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
That looks like a fine reference, seems you did that while I was writing my rebuttal. I will withdraw my AfD request. Jeepday (talk) 13:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - regardless of the withdrawal request from the nominator, this article should still be deleted. Paragraph one is a dictionary definition, paragraph two is a list of examples (without sources) that support the dictionary definition and paragraph three is a list of fictional women (unsourced) that in the opinion of the editor are examples of whatever the female version of a womanizer is (and which are quite frankly ridiculous: Blanche DuBois? Hardly). The reference that was added is pretty much a dictionary, which since this is a dictionary definition doesn't really save the article. I agree that the topic of promiscuity is encyclopedic, which is why there is an encyclopedia article called Promiscuity. Otto4711 15:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Could be much more then a definition, just needs to be updated. --TTalk to me 01:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep It looks like an article that could easily be beefed up. I would rather keep this. A history of the term would definately make interesting reading and, thus, I think would be fine WP content. Slavlin 16:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete - if you like what it "might" become, that's great. When someone comes along who wants to make it become that, they can create the page and do so. For the moment, nobody is working on this dictionary definition page, the first two paragraphs remain a dictionary definition and the last remains off-topic. The previous unsigned comment was added by DewiMorgan. Please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.
  • Comment: I actually do agree with you for the most part. I have AfD'd several articles and had them kept on the basis that it could be something. That seems to be the consensus opinion on it. Don't delete it if you could re-write it. Slavlin 22:27, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Definite Keep It is a concept as well as a word--as is clear from the first sentence, because it explains the use of several possible words for it. It scould use some expansion and some more refs, but that should be extremely easy. We delete unsourcable articles, not those that are still lacking sources. Similarly, short articles that should be expanded on are also not appropriate for deletion. Most of the articles in WP could be considered to fall within that class. Though articles up for deletion that lack references enough to show importance are often expanded there, it is a very clumsy way to improve articles on things that do seem notable--it is much easier to simply expand them than to send them for pointless AfDs. DGG 07:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Your comment does not address that this article is a dictionary definition. Or, if you prefer, since it lists synonyms, a thesaurus entry. Sourcing is not the issue with this article. Dictionary definitions can be very well sourced, but that makes them no less dictionary definitions and no less unsuitable for Wikipedia. There is nothing that an article of womanizers could cover that the article on promiscuity can't and doesn't cover better. Otto4711 20:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment; User:Otto4711 has suggested a merge to promiscuity. There is a fairly strong lack of consensus here, but I don't see anything on either the keep or delete side that would not be addressed by a merge and redirect to promiscuity, both sides have good points and neither position would be adversely impacted by the merge. Assuming (just for argument, not taking sides) the contention of a non-notable dictionary entry, that would be acceptable as Part of the article on promiscuity. The keep side is arguing to keep the content, no one is claiming the article is particularly up to stand alone criteria, and if someone ever wants to carve it back out and build it up, that would certainty always be an option later. Jeepday (talk) 20:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep article is referenced and well-made; it just needs a fixer-upper. Besides, I know a lot of womanizers — take me for instance ;) ~I'm anonymous
  • Keep Topic is clearly notable. Some potential references for expansion after short Google search: [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]. Current content is not merely a short dictdef and seems acceptable until somebody comes along to improve it without having to start from scratch. PrimeHunter 23:44, 19 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.