Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Girlfriend experience
- 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. John254 19:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Violates WP:WINAD, does not establish notability per WP:N, has no references and violates WP:V, possibly violates WP:OR and WP:NEO. CyberAnth 04:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. non-notable jargon --JWSchmidt 04:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I do agree this seems to be a jargon term and pure dictdef. Sourcing and a discussion of the sociological implication would help that, but a cursory Lexis-Nexis scan turned up nothing except a few trivial mentions not related to this usage. Wintermut3 05:13, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Keep per added sources. Wintermut3 07:39, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]Delete per Wintermut3. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 05:20, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]- Changed to keep following the references that have been added. Article now appears to meet WP:N and WP:V. WJBscribe (WJB talk) 17:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep I just got a spam today with a header that said "looking for a GFE?". I came here to look it up. Its odd that it would be deleted on the same day. I get 78,000 Ghits. You can't search one database and call it quits, Lexis-Nexis or Google Scholar are not ideal for sexual neologisms. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Concept is notable; article should be tagged. Bad-faith, disruptive mass nomination per WP:POINT. Please read Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_AfD so that you may familiarize yourself with the possible alternatives that should be undertaken before nominating an article. --Dhartung | Talk 06:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- comment Richard, per the WP:V requirement, however, non-trivial reputable/scholarly sources are needed, on many of the other sexual topics nominated today, there are those sources, on this one, there are not. I find Lexis to be a bit better than, say, google, at determining what's been studied in a serious context or mentioned in news sources, it is the premier database of news articles and journal articles. Wintermut3 06:46, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - the article currently has 3 non-trivial sources. One is the Villgae Voice article and another was written by a PhD researcher is Sexology. Johntex\talk 08:35, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I was about to add the reference I found in the Village Voice, and someone just beat me to it. Bravo! Yes Lexis Nexis is a gentlemen's database, but not not one to use to find what a "gentlemen's club" is. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 07:03, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep notable term and concept. Improve their articles references instead of deleting it. Johntex\talk 07:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Point taken Richard, sorry if I sounded a bit stuck up there, I'm just (rather justifiably in my opinion) tired of the "if it doesn't exist on 'google' it doesn't exist" bias. Wintermut3 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. A cut-and-paste nom gets a cut-and-paste !vote. Echo commentary above. --Dennisthe2 09:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep - sources added, and for Pete's sake, just open any newspaper (like the New York Times or Christian Science Monitor) personal ad's to see this ;o) SkierRMH 10:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep as another of this nominator's attempts to bowdlerize Wikipedia. Please see WP:POINT. Tarinth 10:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep due to article having serious references. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 11:18, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep. If the nom wants a Wikipedia devoted only to articles suitable for children, perhaps he should start one himself. He might find it easier than constantly proposing perfectly good (if not G-rated) articles for deletion. --Charlene 12:14, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Keep: Don't agree with reasons stated for deletion. Atom 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Consider how many hours of other people's time this long list of AfD's submitted is wasting.
- Speedy keep, I cannot AGF on this, these bunch of AFDs are disrupting a point. Strongly disagree with the nomination, it is definitely notable of course, everything (sources, content, notability) are all present. That's all. Terence Ong 15:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It's something that goes on in the world, it has references, and the article is substantiative enough not to violate WINAD. Squidfryerchef 18:00, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Notice - respondants to this AfD may be interested in this proposal at WP:V to clarify that article improvement is preferable to deletion or blanking. Johntex\talk 21:02, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, I don't suppose explaining all over again is necessary in this case. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 22:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - Weak references, but fixable. Yet another AfD in a pattern by CyberAnth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kesh (talk • contribs) 17:52, January 6, 2007
- Keep - This is a widely used term Albatross2147 23:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep for all the reasons stated previously and on other similar AfDs. Mallanox 03:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary usage guides or slang and idiom guides. TheMindsEye 03:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - I found this listing useful, which prompts me to question whether the few objections are rooted in moral prespectives. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.231.195.16 (talk) 06:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]
- 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.