Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cold feet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. W.marsh 01:16, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination for deletion. Dictionary definition (fails WP:DICDEF) with some unreliable sources - advice column by random estate agent[1] and a press release from a bridal magazine, which don't explain the encyclopedic notability of this term, only that it's used in homebuying and marriage contexts. It's also used in many other contexts, as it just generally means "apprehension or doubt strong enough to prevent a planned course of action". Bwithh 00:10, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- definitely WP:DICDEF. Should go straight to Cold Feet, an actual encyclopaedic entry. And having the two entries is definitely confusing, even with the dablink on the page. Bubba hotep 00:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. --Kf4bdy talk contribs 03:02, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I agree that this article could border on being only dictionary entry, yet based on the use of this term in articles, books, and in internet I will argue that this term can stand on its own as a psychology article; I will even suggest to move it there, i.e. cold feet (psychology) if this helps, e.g. article on cold feet in psychology. Moreover, here’s an article from a group that runs a Cold Feet workshop for ambivalent brides and grooms. There are over 2,500,000 Google hits for “cold feet psychology.” This is all I can add. Whatever voters want to do with this article is fine with me. Later: --Sadi Carnot 14:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, easily expandible. Valid stub for the moment. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per badlydrawnjeff. The article is already far more than a dicdef, and is even more expandable. AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be more than a simple dicdef, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The extra content beyond the dicdef at the moment is both unencyclopedic and in a bad state. How is this more expandable in a verifiable, encyclopedic manner? Bwithh 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I added a few encyclopedic references, to verifiable, reliable source articles, from ABC News and Slate.com. It's a notable term. AnonEMouse (squeak) 16:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It may be more than a simple dicdef, but that doesn't make it encyclopedic. The extra content beyond the dicdef at the moment is both unencyclopedic and in a bad state. How is this more expandable in a verifiable, encyclopedic manner? Bwithh 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. While currently not in a finished state, like Ambivalence it is a potentially valid subject for an article about a emotion. Dryman 05:04, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a slang term for a very broad category of anxiety. At best it could be a redirect to anxiety. It's not like ambivalence, and its not even like stage fright, which is a very specific condition with medically treatable physiological symptoms. Bwithh 14:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per all of the above reasons. --- RockMFR 06:08, 4 November 2006 (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.