Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtesy call

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. Enigma^msg 18:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy call[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for over 8 years, and may not even be correct.[[1]] Slatersteven (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe it fails WP:Notability which begins by saying: "Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article. Wikipedia's concept of notability applies this basic standard to avoid indiscriminate inclusion of topics". I've looked in a couple of reputable dictionaries and cannot see anything that defines the term to comply with the article content. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 12:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Changing my vote to Keep. I think that with the sources added, my concerns have been addressed and so we should close this discussion. Thank you. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 18:37, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete But only on the basis of WP:TNT in that it might be a copyvio of [[2]] - no capture on wayback so they might have copied it from wikipedia Lyndaship (talk) 12:10, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Changing vote to Keep following sourcing and rewrite. Do wonder if the title is the best though, most peoples experience of courtesy calls goes along the lines of "Hello Mrs Foo, this is just a courtesy call......." Lyndaship (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This [3] does not inspire confidence this is a reliable source for a phrases meaning (or even existence). This looks like a variation of Urban dictionary.Slatersteven (talk) 12:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We now have some sources, but I still think there is an issue in that this is not the sole use of the phrase.Slatersteven (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now I think we can close this. Still not sure (as we are not a dictionary) but at least it is now sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 13:06, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Izzat Kutebar and Lyndaship: - care to take a second look after rewrite and sourcing?Icewhiz (talk) 13:25, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 12:23, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I've largely rewrote the article and added references - still stub or start level - but enough for an article. Diplomatic courtesy call is clearly notable - this is a key function on the head of mission level and covered quite a bit (both as a topic, and of course coverage of individual calls). There might be non-diplomatic use as well, though I'm not sure that of a nature that deserves an article.Icewhiz (talk) 13:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the article on Diplomacy. There is really no need for this term to have its own separate article. -wolf 13:40, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A "courtesy call" is a fairly common English usage. Or was. In Anglo-American society "courtesy calls" were formal social calls paid to categories of people, a hostess after a party, newlywed couples, families who had just moved ot the neighborhood, families in mourning. I am frankly not sure that we need an article on this phrase. But I would oppose redirecting it to the Navy or to the diplomatic corps. Makes more sense to improve the article, since all of the uses with which I am familiar are essentially similar: a formal social or professional call that one is expected to pay. beware PRESENTISM.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2018 (UTC)Keep.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:17, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A fairly standard bit of etiquette. If the article needs work then this is done by improving it, not deleting it. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 23:45, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: has much improved since the AfD nom; no present content or notability concerns. Lead could be expanded; but that's about it. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is no longer "Unsourced" as it was at the time of the AFD nomination, and has been expanded significantly. Dream Focus 01:36, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is an important activity undertaken by diplomats on a day to day basis, and the article is now in good shape. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the improvements made. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 03:09, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a GF nomination. A BEFORE would be inherently difficult given how common this specific phrase is, however, with the addition of fuller sourcing it seems clear this passes the general notability guidelines. Kudos to Icewhiz for salvaging it. Chetsford (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Common phrase, and this is beyond mere dictionary treatment. /Julle (talk) 10:16, 26 June 2018 (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.