This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. —Korath (Talk) 01:07, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Girlfriend and Boyfriend[edit]

These 2 articles refer to 2 equivilant versions of a non-marital romantic spouse (1 male, 1 female); this calls for a request of business: it would be superfluous to have 2 articles about different-gender versions of the same thing --TheSamurai 14:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect and merge both "boyfriend" and "girlfriend" to non-marital romantic spouse. --TheSamurai 14:59, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• How did this happen?? I studied this Vfd and I got that an article got put back on Vfd after a while of being kept. No vote right now, this is just a question. Georgia guy 00:01, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• This has already been voted on. So has boyfriend. Both discussions have been blanked; I'm not sure of the method to fix this. I have also completed the incompletely done VFD nomination. --SPUI (talk) 01:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • (reply to message above}: there is no sense salvaging a VfD list from a previous VfD iteration for the same article because it would be superfluous. And besides, people will think that VfD votes from 2 iterations would be part of 1. --TheSamurai 02:30, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • I think the standard is to either create this at "Girlfriend 2" or move the old one to "Girlfriend old" or something. --SPUI (talk) 02:44, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
    • There is a great deal of sense to preserving the prior VfD discussions. SPUI is correct that the proper procedure is to manually edit the VfD nomination so it goes to the a new sub-page (in this case, now VfD/Girlfriend (2nd nomination)). The header and footer on the prior VfD discussions explicitly say that they are to be preserved. Please familiarize yourself with the procedures before making a deletion nomination. If you need help, please ask. This nomination is now fixed. No vote. Rossami (talk) 04:16, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. I will repeat the reasons that were said in the previous VFD: They are well written encyclopedia articles on topics that are well beyond the scope of a dictionary. Zzyzx11 02:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  • Also, the terms "Girlfriend" and "Boyfriend" are more common in the English language than "Non-marital romantic spouse". Zzyzx11 02:37, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Comment Girlfriend is also the name of a magazine with 1,000,000 Google hits. Megan1967 03:15, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. "Boyfriend" and "Girlfriend" are much better known to most people than "Non-marital romantic spouse."
• Keep, nothing has changed from the strong consensus to keep last time. This seems a frivolous VfD. -- Jmabel | Talk 03:59, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, agree with Jmabel. Alphax ^τεχ 09:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Non-marital romantic spouse? What is this, The Coneheads? Mike H 22:51, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. I couldn't have said it better. I agree completely. -SocratesJedi | Talk 02:32, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Rhobite 00:22, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable concepts. Capitalistroadster 10:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Boyfriend and Girlfriend duplicate a significant amout of content from each others' articles; as I said, I think it is superfluous to have 2 different articles that duplicate most content from and onto each other. And the phrase "the female equivilant, Girlfriend" clearly admits that the Boyfriend article duplicates information from the Girlfriend article. If you redirect and merge as directed, please put the disambiguation links in the article I request for bf and gf to be merged and redirected to. Will anybody concur with me now? --TheSamurai 23:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: No, they are different concepts with different associations. Duplicate content occurs in a great many articles to varying degrees. Slac speak up! 11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• Keep This is more notable than a pokemon character. --Spinboy 07:44, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Both of these are encyclopedic and have recently survived VfD. Keep. Slac speak up! 11:54, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Anybody who thinks this should be deleted doesn't get what reference resources are about. This topic is rich for social/anthropoligical exploration and is the definition of encyclopedic. Leave it open so people can improve and expand upon it. Sniffandgrowl 04:12, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • User was created today; he has only four edits not to vfds, two of them to his user page. —Korath (Talk) 04:37, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)
• KeepThe tone is encyclopedic and the terms are more accessible as they stand at present - "non-marital romantic spouse" seems to be confusing the issue. --Onlyemarie 19:00, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep these. Delete the oxmoronic "Non-marital romantic spouse" which is not a term anyone uses. Jonathunder 08:09, 2005 Apr 2 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.