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 delete Shii (tock) 06:51, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly Adult Presence

[edit]

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

Little-known term and not notable. I found zero hits in Google News and Google Books for this term. Article has been totally unreferenced since creation and I suspect it can't be referenced by any reliable sources. Night Ranger (talk) 20:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Chaperone (social). There are a small number of Google News and Google Books hits; see [1], [2], and [3], for example. But I don't see anything in this article or the cites I found which suggests that a Friendly Adult Presence is appreciably different from a chaperone. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:09, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:40, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreferenced, smells far too much like a 4chan hoax, and their fondness for "fapping". Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not a hoax, because the phrases is found in books describing Quakerism. -- 202.124.74.171 (talk) 12:15, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I dont think it's a hoax either, and the term 'fap' = masturbate hasnt been around very long anyway. Still likely not notable, though. —Soap— 13:05, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; the event doesn't meet notability guidelines. --Kylfingers (talk) 18:13, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Metropolitan90. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable and exactly the same thing as a chaperone. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:08, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've had a brief look for sources and most are unreliable - the majority being websites for Quaker groups. To be deemed notable, I think there really needs to be use of the term outside the Quaker community. For that reason, I would propose deletion of the article as a non-notable neologism. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 16:41, 23 October 2011 (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.