Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control freak

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. Walton^talk 12:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Control freak[edit]

Unreferenced original research. A quick search of JSTOR seems to indicate that the term is used primarily in a joking context and does not interest psychologists. Chick Bowen 20:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, cleanup and add references, it's a widely-used term, psychological or not. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 20:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 'widely used terms' go in dictionaries. There's no coherent article to be written here, just an essay.--Sandy Donald 20:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research. I agree with Sandy Donald. Yechiel Man 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Fix, it's a notable enough term. Useight 20:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-We are not a dictionary. Plus, the section `In popular culture' seems to be entirely WP:OR and simply a (very incomplete) list of people with authoritative personalities on TV.--Rossheth | Talk to me 20:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/request; if you say "add references" or "fix," please give some sense of what kind of references those might be. As I said above, I spent some time looking for usable references and did not find any. Chick Bowen 21:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, pop psychology can be notable too. References like this Guardian article tracing history of word are a good start. It doesn't appear in Google News Archive prior to 1990, but after that hoo boy. It appears to have reached a dictionary by at least 1996[1] meaning that it technically passes WP:NEO. --Dhartung | Talk 04:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 08:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Cleanup - Maybe it doesn't belong in psychology, maybe it does. It certainly belongs in one or more Management categories. Nearly ubiquitous is the business community (at least in the United States.) LaughingVulcan 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is already more than a dictdef and there is plenty of room for expansion. note that wiktionary doesnt have an entry for this, so in the very least it should be transwiki'ed. John Vandenberg 05:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and add references-This is much more than a dictionary entry: this article lists fictional control freaks, which is useful to Wikipedia, and contains explanations of the psychology of control freaks (which could be improvedanf for which references could be added). This term is used widely enough to deserve its place on Wikipedia. Canjth 19:30, 27 June 2007 (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.