Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Work spouse

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, defaulting to keep. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 10:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Work spouse

Deprodded without explanation; transwikied to Wiktionary at wikt:Transwiki:Work spouse. TheProject 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Keep, apparently non-neologism. Slate's Timothy Noah claims it "entered in the national lexicon" in 1987 via David Owen in The Atlantic Monthly. Powers 19:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, I only learnt of this phrase recently and it has applied to my work relationships in the past and my wifes' in the present. Surely specific references are not required to authenticate this input, only confirm that the phrase is in current use. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 211.28.115.108 (talk • contribs) .
    • Note: IP's first edit. Powers 15:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It is the task of a dictionary to "confirm that a phrase is in use". Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary. An article here entitled "Work spouse" is an article about work spouses, whatever they are. And for determining what work spouses are, "specific references" most definitely are required. See our Wikipedia:Verifiability policy. Uncle G 18:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete essentially a verbose dicdef and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete unless the article is made more encyclopedic, in which case keep. HumbleGod 22:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikified and categorized. It's a step, at least. Powers 15:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to wiktionary and delete. Just a dic-def Eluchil404 02:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I'm not quite sure what makes this a dic-def. The first sentence certainly is, but the rest of it is not something I would expect to see in a dictionary. Powers 12:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep, but cleanup. Per Powers. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Delete I think the question we need to develop is, is this a valid sociological concept, covered in literature and accepted by scholars. My guess is, no. - CrazyRussian talk/email 13:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete verbose dictdef is still a dictdef. Already transwikied. Kimchi.sg 14:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per above. Dionyseus 14:52, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The problem as I see it is that "Work wife" or "Work-wife" or "Workwife" or "Office wife" has in fact gotten a substantial amount of traction, but the phrase "Work spouse" has not. By trying to be gender-neutral, the writer has created a term that doesn't really exist. Incidentally Faith Baldwin—what? we don't have an article on her? we should—wrote a 1930 novel entitled "Office Wife," which became a movie. The imdb plot summary says "Larry Fellowes of Fellowes Publishing wants Kate to write her next book about the 'Office Wife'. The personal secretary/stenographer spends more time with the busy executive and makes more decisions than his wife ever well. This creates a bond between the secretary and boss that the wife can not hope to equal," so the phrase "office wife" is hardly new. See this Wordspy article for more evidence of its reality.
Mr. Smith is hereby awarded a round tuit for his perspicacious opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Mr. Smith is hereby awarded a round tuit for his perspicacious opinion. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep but mark for cleanup, move to Work wife as the most common term (assuming it is), create lots of redirects from Office wife, Office husband, Office spouse, Work-wife, Workwife, Work husband, Work-husband, Workhusband toss in Faith Baldwin's book/movie, etc. May do some of this myself when I get a Round Tuit. If we must have gender neutrality in the title, I think perhaps it should be Work wife/Work husband, not Work spouse. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Get a load of this: 272 hits in Google Books for exact phrase "office wife," most of them relevant. In case you're not familiar with Google Books, 272 hits is a lot. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment The current article, bless its verifiable heart, does cite some sources, and the Slate article it cites says "the terms 'work wife,' 'work husband,' and 'work marriage' entered the national lexicon in 1987, when the writer David Owen wrote a groundbreaking Atlantic essay describing a particular Platonic intimacy that frequently arises between male and female employees working in close proximity." Add Work marriage to the list of potential redirects or move targets for the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:42, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment a couple weeks ago I read an article on CNN.com about work spouses, and just a couple days ago I overheard some people in a restaraunt joking about being "work spouses", apparently they had heard something about it on t.v. So it's not a phrase made up by the article's author, and it is the one I've been hearing lately. I'll try to dig up the cnn.com article for a reference for this article. ONUnicorn 18:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep and move, cleanup etc. per Dpbsmith. --PresN 19:44, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep or transwiki. I have certainly seen this term in the MSM a number of times before learning of it here. Agent 86 20:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as dictdef. --DaveG12345 22:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep (Cleanup, et cetera still a good idea of course) as the current article is verifiable and more than a dictionary definition. GRBerry 02:35, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. Verifiable and has appropriate references. However, I'm neutral on what to actually call the article. --Alan Au 03:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment Boston Globe article uses phrases Workplace spouse and Office marriage, add 'em to the list of possible redirects... Dpbsmith (talk) 14:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Note to closer: article has been extensively expanded since July 12. Powers 16:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep IT! I think I have one! OSU80 00:05, 18 July 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.