Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quickie (sex)

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 keep. --Bongwarrior (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quickie (sex)

~~The result was nomination withdrawn by User:Cholga. non-admin close. LaMenta3 (talk) 07:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]

I'm going to have to overturn this one for now, there are still quite a few delete votes, which means a withdrawal cannot end the AfD. Soxred93 | talk bot 05:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Not notable, merge with sexual intercourse for its minor relevance. Article is otherwise unreferenced completely. Cholga^talK! 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)~~ -remove listing based on recent improvements of the article.Cholga^talK! 07:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete'Delete-per nom.Cholga^talK! 04:21, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Very common sexual slang term, doubtlessly notable. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 04:40, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I could also see this as a transwiki/soft redirect to Wiktionary. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 05:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
Delete Per WP:DICT. Mstuczynski (talk) 04:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Change to Keep I must admit, I still do not consider this article encyclopedia worthy. However I can not see any valid rationale for deletion since the expansion. Dhartung seems to be a genius for rescuing articles. This is at least the fourth one I have seen him save. Mstuczynski (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quickie (but not speeedy) Delete This can't easily be expanded beyond a dicdef as far as I can see. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 05:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Tiptoety ^talk 05:01, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While it may very well be slang, quickie is indeed dictionary worthy [1] Mstuczynski (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect / transwiki it's a pretty simple concept, I see no potential for an article beyond a dictionary definition. <eleland/talkedits> 06:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary May not be for Wikipedia, but that's what Wiktionary is for. Soxred93 | talk bot 06:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Switching to Keep based on improvements. Soxred93 | talk bot 16:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Casual sex. *** Crotalus *** 09:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That redir wouldn't make sense; casual sex is sex outside of a stable relationship, while a quickie is, well, quick sex. Different concepts. <eleland/talkedits> 09:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough concept. • Anakin ^(talk) 17:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary per Soxred93. --Explodicle (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hurry and get this over with. I have to go back to work. Mandsford (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- What are you talking about? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 07:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Think about it a minute. You'll ... er ... come to it. --Dhartung | Talk 09:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - D'oh! Thanks :p —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 19:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep Article is more than just a definition and discusses the implications that quickies have in relationships. And is nicely reliably sourced. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ. Article has been improved to be more than just a dicdef and discusses the term in a anthropological/sociological context. LaMenta3 (talk) 06:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JoshuaZ. It's more than a dicdef. Now if only it had advice on getting my wife to agree to them more often... =) Dethme0w (talk) 06:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have to say keep. It's no Sistine Chapel but it does have properly-cited information that goes beyond what a dictionary would provide. --House of Scandal (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms crassic\^talk 21:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Vote changed. crassic\^talk 12:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neologisms are not found in dictionaries. Quickie is. --Dhartung | Talk 09:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I honestly have never seen it in such. If that's the case ... I change my vote. crassic\^talk 12:40, 3 March 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.