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. There are myriad opinions here such as merging to friendship, creating a disambiguation page, and retaining the article as a stand-alone article. Furthermore, in a comment below the initial (stricken) withdrawal, the nominator again withdrew on 25 March 2014 (UTC), and no other delete !votes are present. Further discussion regarding this article can continue on an article talk page. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Best friends forever (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no aim. it simultaneously acts as a dictionary entry and disambiguation page, but also attempts weakly to describe adolescent and post-adolescent friendships.

If we're trying to get into the nuts and bolts of what best friends are, culturally-speaking, or how best friendships impact human development, the people who should comment on that are the authorities in the field of culture, anthropology, human behavior, child development, etc., but I also think such content makes more sense in an article on "best friendships" rather than in an article about the cutesy modern expression "Best friends forever". So, I'm of the opinion that the article can be deleted, or turned into a redirect to Friendship, or merged into Friendship if there's enough content here to warrant inclusion. In its present state, the article is a wordier version of this Wiktionary entry, and has not improved much since 2010. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn - I withdraw the AfD. Sorry everybody. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Even though I think I screwed up by creating the AfD, I'll wait for it to resolve and then renovate future approaches to this sort of issue. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:16, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination proposes a variety of actions which may be taken by ordinary editing such as a title change (move) or merger. Such action is preferred per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. A deletion discussion is not appropriate as this is not the article's talk page and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew (talk) 21:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Andrew, my nomination isn't sudden or anything. The article PRODed by another user in 2011. A few users have mocked it on the talk page for being poorly written, and user Gusworld questioned the sources that attempt to bolster the subject as presented in the article. If there is a point to the article, I don't see what it is, or what it has attempted to be since 2010. I first raised my confusion on the talk page in January, with no objections or attempts to clarify. Not sure what special treatment is suggested here. It's an article about a common phrase that doesn't impart the significance of the phrase. And it's not like sociologists treat "best friends forever" as an actual, and distinctive type of friendship. Merging the scraps of this article somewhere else might be a way to go, but seriously, what useful portion could be merged? To exist, the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten and refocused on the significance of BFF in popular culture or something. No? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Obviously there is work to be done here and I have started doing it. But the question at AFD is whether we need to use the delete function. The nomination seems to acknowledge that this should not be a red link and that there are more constructive alternatives. So, if we're not going to use the delete function, why have a deletion discussion? Andrew (talk) 10:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

((u|A fair point. I've had a reality check recently with regards to my AfD nominations. I'm open-minded about the fate of the article, and AfD seemed at the time the best place to discuss all the options. I withdraw my AfD. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Friendship It doesn't need a separate article. Anything useful here can be included in the article Friendship, which would help to make it more complete. --Stfg (talk) 01:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support the suggestion made below to change the current page to a disambiguation page (having merged any content into the Friendship article). --Stfg (talk) 11:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Change into disambiguation page. The hat note on the current pages tells us that there are several notable things (mainly TV episodes) with this title. A brief definition of the expression itself could be at the top of the page. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see a lot of Google news and Google book search results for the phrase, so it is used a lot. Not sure if it needs its own article, separate than Friendship. Dream Focus 01:45, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Variety of actions - the page itself should be a disambiguation page. "BFF" is certainly notable as a word, as the usage can caught on remarkably in the past 20 years. If it isn't already, should be in the dictionary, but I'm not convinced that it should have its own encyclopedia page. I think an argument could be made that BFF could have a mention on another page, such as friendship. The concept of BFF, imo, isn't anything distinguishable from other types of friendship. If there was some new type of friendship that it described, I would argue for its inclusion, but I haven't seen anything that suggests that. I looked at the sources and it looks like they indeed use the phrase, but aren't really about the phrase to describe the concept of bff as opposed to other type of friendship. So my vote is turn this page into disambig. and merge. Bali88 (talk) 02:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The sources do, in fact, drew a clear distinction between the different levels of friendship. For example, Best Friends Forever explicitly spells out a hierarchy of casual friends, good friends and best friends. Academic studies such as Best friends forever?: High school best friendships and the transition to college are specifically concerned with this level of close friendship too. As multiple books have been written about this topic, it passes WP:GNG easily. Andrew (talk) 10:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to disambiguation page. Definitions are at best friend forever. There there is Best Friends Forever (South Park), Best Friends Forever (TV series), and Best Friends Forever (soap opera) or Best Friends Forever?. Then there is also currently a redirect at Best Friend Forever to Paris Hilton's My New BFF, which seems a questionable redirect at best. Then there is also episode 12 of season 1 in List of R. L. Stine's The Haunting Hour episodes, a track from Love is You (EP) by Cherry Belle, and Best Friends Forever, an Internet album by Liz Enthusiasm, 2009 comedy film BFF: Best Friends Forever, simulation game High School Dreams: Best Friends Forever, upcoming Nepali film BFF: Best Friends Forever (2014 film), a song Best Friends Forever (Tweenies song), and any number of partial title matches which might be ambiguous enough to merit a mention such as Super Best Friends Forever. older ≠ wiser 13:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Dab page ..older ≠ wiser demonstrates the many uses that need disambiguation. However what to do with the content.. if someone wants to recreate in best friends forever (phrase), and can demonstrate sources about the phrase and its impact on society (beyond examples of use and definition) that would be OK. -- GreenC 04:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I added to the article. The phrase has been around at least since 1987 and has had an impact on society, likely in an amount sufficient to be described in a Wikipedia article given enough time. Andrew, Dream Focus, Green Cardamom, please consider, reconsider. Thanks. -- Jreferee (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't disagree that the phrase exists and that it has had an impact on society. I do, however question the article's focus. If we're talking about the phrase, then let's talk about the phrase and the impact on the phrase in popular culture. But if we're trying to say that there is a real anthropological thing called "best friends forever"--that the Mayans invented it or whatever--and it's somehow different and closer than the more common concept of "best friends", that's gonna be a weird thing to try to sell. I'm going to re-post this comment on the article's talk page. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, agreed. Bali88 (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Friendship; then, create a DAB at Best Friends Forever (which currently redirects here) for the songs/TV shows/etc. and redirect this there. I don't think this warrants its own article, per WP:NOTDICT. ansh666 05:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and DAB I think merging the content into a small section of Friendship and creating a DAB page for the phrase, including a link to the Friendship section and for all those other uses that older ≠ wiser listed would make it accessible and meaningful to the most readers. - Gorthian (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: a notable phrase. Even though some of the content would perhaps go better in Friendship, the phrase itself and its uses, could be expanded in this article, as the second paragraph has begun to do. BethNaught (talk) 20:46, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By that I mean the paragraph beginning "The term BFF as in Best friends forever has been used". The analysis of childhood friendships added by User:Wallfull is not what I believe is appropriate. BethNaught (talk) 20:59, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the phrase is certainly notable enough to have a wikipedia article, but i question how well we can find sources for this. People use the phrase widely, but how often do you find reliable sources discussing the use of the phrase and its impact on culture? I question if we can really do a BFF (phrase) without it being largely original research :-/ Bali88 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep where this topic is notable and has plenty of sources which are reliable. It is a common phrase used, especially nowadays and many young readers will be searching for this term. A lot of work has been done to improve the page, too. Tinton5 (talk) 20:07, 30 March 2014 (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.