Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mother

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 of the debate was Speedy keep Seems a little WP:POINTish. Computerjoe 's talk 16:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

mother[edit]

Long dicdef. Some of the content is also questionable, for example, the Romania comment. Voortle 01:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a long dicdef, e.g. includes info on Mother's day, Virgin Mary, linguistic notes, etc. Suggest contacting the author to clear up the Romania content. RidG ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but Clean Up and Expand (add expand tags). Clearly there's room for much expansion beyond Dicdef. Romania comment should be removed, unless we're going to run social anthropology kinship notes on family structures of all varieties in different cultures(and believe me, there's a LOT of variety). The international section needs some wikification. Bwithh 01:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.--Jusjih 01:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I can see why this article was nominated, but I think that the information on "Mother's day" and other names for one's mother ("mum", "ma"), put it over the top as more than a dicdef. AdamBiswanger1 01:58, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Not a dictionary definition. If it needs fixing, fix it, or ask someone to do so. Fg2 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - At the moment it looks like OR. OK, there are references at the end but most statements are not directly sourced. Wonder if it is OR or where it is from? BlueValour 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nonsense. Stating well known information without a source is not OR. Please read the relevant guidelines again. Osomec 03:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Is this a good faith nomination? Sure, cleanup, but really, now. SM247^{My Talk} 02:01, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per above. --Arnzy ^{(whats up?)} 02:42, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Osomec 03:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad-faith nom. --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to see this article explain the etymology behind how the word is used in so many languages.
Keep Why delete it now? --Alexie 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course; any encyclopedia needs an article on the concept of "mother". I suspect the reason both this article and Father are so stubby is that it's intimidating to attempt to expand such a huge topic. Where to begin? How to avoid cultural bias? How to avoid original research and stereotypes? I will say "clean up" but whoever does clean it up will have both my admiration and my sympathy. User:Angr 13:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep By the nominator's logic, we should also delete father, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, man, woman, etc. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 16:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. man and woman are different from this article in that they're beyond a long dicdef and have much encyclopedic content, whereas this article is not and contains questionable content. Voortle 16:27, 5 July 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.