Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of terms of endearment (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 January 18.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms of endearment[edit]

As with the last AfD, this article is totally unsourced, and has become a dumping ground for anything anybody wishes to put here. Old fruit? Man in the Pickle Suit? iPod? Newfoundland? Whack-a-mole? No. This is an indiscriminate list: anything that someone uses as a term of endearment could go here. If there are a few particularly notable ones, they should be added to the main article, with citations. This list needs to go. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, indescriminate list which is inherently full of all kinds of hoaxes and madeup stuff. If I call my girlfriend Quetzalcoatl tonight, shall I add it to the list tomorrow? Usrnme h8er (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further, for the vast majority of the list, WP:V Usrnme h8er (talk) 21:41, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Completely un-encyclopedic, subjective and pointless. --MrShamrock (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLinks. I think it fits, and most exemplifies, the Cat. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 09:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge heavily reduced version back into Terms of endearment. This list is rife with original research entries of uncommon terms. The article should contain the common entries like Darling, Baby or Honey (either not linked or linked to RELEVANT articles). Any of the entries that are not common knowledge like these should either be referenced or removed. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem to be concensus of the Editors of the Parent Article that it is better as a Spinout Article. Do you not believe that it would make the Parent Article "cluttered."? And why would you believe a limitation of "the common entries" is a good thing for an Encyclopedia. Do readers not come to WP to find new and uncommonly known things? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 00:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LC items 2, 4, 6, and 10. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - useful, encyclopaedic list. "Needs some editing" is not a deletion criterion. Wily D 14:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a list of things that are likely to justify encyclopedia articles - words and terms belong in a dictionary. Lists of related words don't belong here. --Michig (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
either improve or delete--- either course would be an improvement over the unreferenced undefined unlinked list there at present. If nobody is willing to promise to fix it, it would be better deleted. DGG (talk) 02:40, 14 January 2009 (UTC) .[reply]
comment Wookie? The list is fairly awesome, but totally unsourced and probably needs to be started from scratch if at all. Okay pookums? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This category within Wiktionary is the way to access such a list of terms for anyone with the desire to do so. --Michig (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That list has 15 names. The article has 259, after I trimmed the more obvious examples of unique personal/spoofs such as 'Wookie' and 'Bantha'. Every single vote to delete here is based on good editing ideas, that have nothing whatsoever to do with an AfD discussion, other than Stifle's essay assay, which is just plain wrong.

WP:LC

"2: The list is of interest to a very limited number of people" I had really better just not say some of the things that come to mind on this subject. Suffice it to say that the rule itself requires one to more or less make assumptions in a way contrary to the principle behind WP:AGF, ie mindreading. In this case, the mindreading is to be performed on the entire WP readership at once.

"4: The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable." Or to put it another way, WP:LC is an essay that uses namedropping of WP:V and WP:NOTE.

"6: The list is unlimited and/or unmaintainable." This insidious charge appears reasonable, but is soon shown to be ludicrous. See my recent edit to the page. One just deletes the dubious entries, it's that simple.

"10: Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas." This rule, when you consider that all articles are required to contain no OR and SYNTH, is thereby a tautology, particularly in combination with number 4 or one of the rules from which 4 is, shall we say, 'derived'. Either an entry on a list is empirically observable, or verifiable, or it is not placable under OR in the first place. (2 edits) Anarchangel (talk) 03:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:LIST as an indiscriminate list of many NN ideas, per above. Or merge back into Terms of endearment, a valid scholarly topic for a comprehensive encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Userspace, delete, repair, and restore This list has certainly flown far out of hand, and for now, it should be redirected or deleted after being copied into userspace where it can be cut down and then restored. I will even begin paring the list now. Tealwisp (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2009 (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.