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 Merge. to Terms of endearment. I read all three debates closely, it's a clear-cut merge case for all three. The lack of sources is an issue the article has that isn't fully met. Remove all of them without sources, and you don't really have enough content for a spin-off article. The keeps were mainly, was because of a WP:NOTAGAIN, but thats not policy as someone could renominate an article if it doesn't fall within our guidelines, and it was in DRV with a comment of "no prejustice to another AFD", so these arguements are moot. The best opision here is to merge the sourced terms to the parent article, and if that becomes way too long with reliable, sourceable entries, then it could be split-off. Thanks Secret ^account 20:56, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms of endearment[edit]

List of terms of endearment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

I had AfD'd this article before; it was closed as no consensus; I took it to DRV where no consensus was found to overturn. (I disagree with both closures.) The DRV was closed without prejudice to another immediate AfD, so here we are. The core reason for deletion still stands from the last AfD. The list is indiscriminate; anything that is used as a term of endearment can be put here, and routinely are. seresin ( ¡? )  08:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Last AFD closed one week ago. The "no consensus" result looks reasonable to me, as there were good arguments in all directions and nobody seemed to agree with anybody else. Let's keep it for now, and give it time for consensus to emerge, and perhaps for one of the "merge" or "fix" !voters in the last AFD to do something about it. JulesH (talk) 08:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not DRV round 2, so there is no point in evaluating the last AFD. Maybe consensus will emerge here or maybe not, but your comment is not helpful to this AFD reaching consensus. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yet another indiscriminate list. This list violates WP:SALAT as the topic is too broad for a list article. Anything anybody has said as a term of endearment can fit in this list and who are we to judge what stays in and what gets left out when the topic is so broad? Themfromspace (talk) 10:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Please read WP:KEEPLISTINGTILITGETSDELETED. I realise you don't like the decision to retain this article, but I think you need to accept it with good grace.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:24, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no decision to retain the article. As you know, no consensus defaults to keep. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, then let's say the "outcome not to delete" the article. It's still an outcome of an AfD process. Immediately renominating for deletion is the exact counterpart of immediately recreating a deleted article--there are good reasons why it should be disfavoured.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced and just unbelievable at some stages: "Newfoundland"? Seriously? You're kidding me. This isn't going to be any use anywhere, so kill it from orbit. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep Disruptive renomination per our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I do see where it says that, but I don't know who wrote it there, and I don't really agree with it. When an AFD closes as no consensus, especially when many people thought it should have been closed as delete, another AFD seems appropriate. Also note the comment by the admin who closed the DRV. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Whether any given foo on the list is actually a term of endearment can only be determined in one of two ways: (1) original lexicographic research (e.g. "foo must be a term of endearment because look how it's used in this book") or (2) using a dictionary as a source. Such material is not suited for Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a dictionary. But it is welcome over at Wiktionary. Michig at the last AFD even pointed to just the right place for this list: [1]. Indeed, Wikipedia's readers are already pointed to [2] at the top of the page Term of endearment. And did I mention that Wikipedia is not a dictionary? The page under discussion should be hidden from view using the "delete" tool. 160.39.213.152 (talk) 14:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh Dear!!! Yes, it's a dumb article, and I would definitely say delete, but it's only been two weeks since the last discussion; I doubt that this will go today, though it will eventually go. Of course, it's possible that someone might try to do a serious article about terms of endearment, with quotations from those things that have words printed on paper, what's the word, "books" and quoting from authors like Shakespeare. I seriously doubt it. Based on protocol, I figure we'll have to put up with it for awhile longer. Mandsford (talk) 15:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep-- Not Again! This is not an exemplary article but it can be improve if someone takes the challenge. --J.Mundo (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any such list that omits chuck—which has the authority of both Macbeth and Wallace—doesn't deserve to live. Oh, and it's also indiscriminate, unmaintainably broad, and essentially a collection of mostly unsourceable reverse dicdefs (and therefore not an encyclopedic topic). Fails WP:SALAT, WP:OR, and other guidelines. The closing admin at DRV specifically left the door open for an immediate renomination, so I see nothing wrong with this AfD. Deor (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:30, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - While I fail to see the encyclopedic value of the article, consensus on two previous nominations has ended in it being retained. In addition, the nom's decision to re-AFD was somewhat inappropriate. KaySL (talk) 16:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• I've added some sources just now. On a side note, the book The Lover's Tongue: A Merry Romp Through the Language of Love and Sex has lots of good material that could be used to expand the article Term of endearment. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but remove all unsourced entries unless they're blindingly obvious. (The blindingly obvious ones need to be sourced eventually too, but they don't need to be removed immediately.) I needed only to glance at the "A"s to see some nonsense: (1) "Acct (German)" - as a fluent non-native speaker of German I am quite certain no such word exists; (2) "Amadan" - as a non-fluent non-native speaker of Irish I am quite certain that this word, which means "fool", is not a term of endearment. But AFD isn't cleanup, and cleanup is all this list needs. —Angr 21:52, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and improve beyond the bare list. There is an overlap between the functions of an encyclopedia and a dictionary, and this is in that region. (the terms themselves need only be sourced to some standard printed dictionary) . This is a change from my previous opinion, on the basis of the various arguments. DGG (talk) 23:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a viable spinout of Terms of endearment but trim to BlueLinks if u feel you must. I think it fits, and most exemplifies, the Cat. Besides, shoving it through AFD again and again seems to be getting it more references. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - aside from the problem with the repeated nominations, the nom's reason for deletion is that the list is indiscriminate. I do not agree; I think criteria for inclusion in this list can be determined and enforced. I have added some suggestions to that end on the talk page.  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  05:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow keep. AfD is not clean-up, really, sources are certainly available to source items as considered a term of endearment, if the list is somehow too broad or something then work to improve it through wording of the wp:lede and by example of adding sourcing. AfD is not a Magic 8-ball to shake until "it is certain" appears. -- Banjeboi 10:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. this ia not a definition but a list. and I do see some encyclopedic value of the artice,. Warrington (talk) 13:28, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've just removed every unsourced entry from the list and we've got no more than a dozen; better as merged into term of endearment. And yes, I know there are some false positives (for example, "angel") Sceptre ^(talk) 13:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With this edit you removed more than half of the article. You can NOT source something which is not there any more. Warrington (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Please see the talk page for my comments about removing unsourced entries (my suggestions on how to go about it) and sourcing all entries (needs to be done). Thanks!  LinguistAtLarge • Msg  15:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep An article shouldn't be relisted a week after an AFD ends. The clean up has happened now regardless jbolden1517^Talk 18:51, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a mess, mostly lacking in sources: if anyone anytime notably or not uses a term as a term of endearment it gets in the list, it's endless and without purpose. List of terms of disparagement next? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep as article already closed as keep in January 2008 (I guess January is the month to nominate this article...), i.e. this is a case of keep trying until its deleted. The subject is undoubtedly notable, i.e. they even made a movie called Terms of Endearment. And the list is discriminate, i.e. it concerns only terms of endearment and per our policies on verifiability only terms of endearment listed in reliable sources. The article serves a navigational purpose by being a table of contents or gateway to our articles on the items listed in this list and helps to illustrate examples of terms of endearment. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:12, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Who can forget the rousing scene where they listed random synonyms in that...er...drama about the difficulties between a mother and daughter. Isn't this a bit of a Chewbacca argument? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:07, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  See pages 23 through 24, for example, of this book, i.e. the subject of "terms of endearment is discussed in a variety of way and including in published list form from which we can reference this encyclopedic article. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:11, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  And this prompts bringing up a movie that has nothing to do with this list because? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:15, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Because it's undeniably relevant to the larger scheme of things. Cheers! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  So, does that drama about the difficult relationship between a mother and daughter have anything to do with a list of words? Other than having vaguely related names? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:23, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. It shows that the subject is one people are interested in and that the concept is such that it has even become the title of a notable film. Thus, listing actual terms of endearments as verified in published books is a worthy inclusion for our project. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh man. That's a list of names for your cat or dog. Are you really sure that's relevant here? You might be better off with List of pet names (I hope that's a red link).- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:25, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a list of terms of endearments, which is the scope of this article. Terms of endearments can apply to pets as well as humans. The article is not titled list of terms of endearments (people only). Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's a list of names which are based on endearments. There is a difference between the two. Note that these are all proper names. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:33, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Thus it is a discriminate list. Take care! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:35, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  You're so concerned about protecting this article that you're not even carefully reading what you're adding. This source sucks, and it harms the article with its irrelevance. Please don't do that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:36, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, it is a good source as it's a published book with an actual list of terms of endearment and yes they can apply to people as well as animals, but in any event, the article is at worst mergeable to Terms_of_endearment#Examples. Have a nice nighT! --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not a list of pet names, it's a list of proper names. It's a published book of suggested proper names for your pet. Implicit in "independent, reliable source" is "relevant," and adding irrelevant nonsense to protect an article that doesn't really need protecting this way (nobody's arguing about notability, just WP:NOT#DICTDEF) is harmful to the project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Harmful to the project is renominating an article for deletion three times after it was kept twice already, especially when it's an article that gets thousands of page views and thus, as also exemplified by the numerous keeps above and good faith edits to the article is considered worthwhile by a good chunk of our community. As DGG said the other day quoting Samuel Johnson, "All knowledge is itself of some value. There is nothing so minute or inconsiderable, that I would rather know it than not." This article is worth keeping per Wikipedia:PRESERVE#Preserve_information, as it is not original research (verified through reliable published sources), not redundant (the main terms of endearment articles links to here as a spinoff or subarticle), it's not irrelevant (encylopedias and almanacs typically provide lists of examples of a topic and it serves a navigational function), it is not patent nonsense (only citable references should be included), not copywright violations (again, cited by multiple sources, not copy and pasted from one source), not inaccurate (because verifiable by multiple sourcing), and obviously not unsourced claims about real people. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 07:50, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  "I'm not wrong because the people I disagree with are wrong." *sigh* Whatever. Just please, if you're trying to preserve this article, kindly don't shit on it? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:57, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Baker, Nicholson How I fell in love with Wikipedia, The Guardian, April 10 2008:
  Wikipedia was like a giant community leaf-raking project in which everyone was called a groundsman. Some brought very fancy professional metal rakes...and some were just kids...stuffing handfuls in the pockets of their sweatshirts, but all the leaves they brought to the pile were appreciated...And the pile grew and everyone jumped up and down in it, having a wonderful time. And it grew some more, and it became the biggest leaf pile anyone had ever seen, a world wonder...And then self-promoted leaf-pile guards appeared, doubters and deprecators who would look askance at your proffered handful and shake their heads, saying that your leaves were too crumpled or too slimy or too common, throwing them to the side.
  Like the vast majority of Articles for deletion, the policy WP:PRESERVE was not followed: "Whatever you do, endeavour to preserve information"; WP:INTROTODELETE: "Remember that deletion is a last resort." Nominator made zero attempts to improve the article before attacking the article for a third time in this Article for Deletion. WP:PRESERVE was put in place to assure that editors contribute to wikipedia, making the project as a whole stronger. Ikip (talk) 10:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as the article has continued to be improved since the "Keep" of the 1st AfD and the "no consensus" of the 2nd AfD. I feel that the improvements to the article in keeping with guideline and policy merit a definite keep. That aside, and in considering the very recent 2nd AfD, it is cogent to quote WP:NOTAGAIN: "If an article is frivolously nominated (or renominated) for deletion, then editors are justified in opposing the renomination. Frivolous renominations may constitute disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, especially when there was a consensus to keep it in the past, or when only a short time has elapsed since the last nomination." Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:53, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors on Wikipedia:Deletion policy. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Heed them or not at your own discretion.. Consider the value (or lack of same) of the arguments instead of quibbling about procedure. The latter doesn't really serve any purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 00:30, 29 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.