Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Booty call (slang)

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, leaning toward keep; kept by default. --MCB (talk) 06:07, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Booty call (slang)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary - and that is policy (as part of WP:NOT) as opposed to a guideline. Yes, it's a fairly well-known term, but I don't believe it merits a seperate article from casual sex - it should probably be redirected and/or merged into that, given that Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is unreferenced original research expansion on a dicdef. Feel free to suggest why this should be kept, though - I just can't see any value in it at the moment. h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For comparison, "MILF" is a well known term and it doesn't have an article - because it's a dictionary definition and belongs in Wiktionary, not Wikipedia.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 18:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect per 2nd suggestion of nom. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 19:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added a cite. The article is more than a definition as it describes a type of relationship. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the nomination is proposing merge/redirect which is Keep rather than Delete. Nominator could withdraw and do it himself. Colonel Warden (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 22:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I honestly think that it needs more than just one reference to justify inclusion. One reference from a comedian does not demonstrate notability in any way (I really don't think that everything that Ross Noble has discussed at his comedy shows warrants a Wikipedia article at all). Right now this still stands as a poor article, dictionary definition, failing WP:NOT. But still, if you can expand this without violating WP:NOR I might change my mind on this one.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 01:28, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep enough there to justify keeping it. JJL (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable. Everyking (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary of every slang term. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:14, 17 January 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.