Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Boychick

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 as WP:DICDEF. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Boychick[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary; this article is basically just a definition and etymology of the word "boychick". Some individual words have articles about them, such as Orange (word), but there's nothing notable to say about the word "boychick". AJD (talk) 22:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Permanent dicdef. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 22:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICT. Searched Google Books and Google Scholar and couldn't find anything except passing uses and dictionary definitions, so I presume it's not notable as a sociological phenomena or whatever. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, which has an inadequate boychik entry. --Dhartung | Talk 04:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete I have reviewed the wiki standards and cleaned up this article to more than just a definition. In fact nobody seems to have a problem with boyo which is much much less an article. Boychick also has social noteriety. Agent204.15 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Boyo is a disambiguation page; it's not supposed to have content. And boychick still looks like just a definition to me. AJD (talk) 14:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ok, then explain why the article shenanigan which is another disambiguation term, is not being proposed for deletion?204.15.6.99 (talk) 17:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Boyo is a place, and shenanigan refers to a notable TV show, album, etc. That's why they have pages. If boychick or boychik was the title of a notable book or something, it would have an article too. But it shouldn't have an article just for a definition. Ryan Paddy (talk) 22:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's my point! Boychick is a culutural thing, not just a definition. I would have included another link but wiki has black listed it for some reason. It showed all kinds obects with the word boychick printed on them. Not only that, the term boychick is included on many movies , books, plays...ect.204.15.6.99 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find at least one reliable source that states that boychick/boychik is a cultural phenomenon and gives it significant coverage. See the notability guideline for details of the kind of evidence you need. You can't demonstrate notability of the concept by pointing out usage of the term because that is considered original research. You have to provide evidence that reliable sources that have described it as a phenomenon, and not just as a term. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, if there is a specific book or something that has "boychick" in the title, and that book meets wikipedia's criteria for an article, then that book could have an article. But that article would have a different title to this (unless the title of the book is just "Boychick"), and doesn't affect the decision on whether to delete this article. Ryan Paddy (talk) 04:32, 6 June 2008 (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.