Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Development girl

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:00, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Development girl[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIC. Few references to the term in reliable sources, not enough to establish social significance. Could be covered by an entry at Wiktionary. Hrodvarsson (talk) 22:34, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:00, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You...realize this is a film industry term and not some random made-up term, right? Two sources added along with television episodes that have referenced what it is, and a WP:WORD drop is definitely not a good enough reason to form a nomination. Nate • (chatter) 23:06, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nate, while it is a film industry term, is it one that warrants an encyclopedia entry rather than just a dictionary entry over at Wiktionary? A quick look at Google Books does not show much at all for this term. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 00:23, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I gathered that it was film industry slang. I appreciate that you disagree with the nomination but is there any need for the "You...realize ..., right?" style of typing? I do not see the point unless the aim is condescension. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:25, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You may want to consider WP:NOTNEO which has to do with the notability of individual words as well. L3X1 (distænt write) 03:52, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hrodvarsson (talk) 06:33, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, a film industry phrase but does not appear to meet notability criteria for its own topic. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 15:30, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to insufficient coverage to establish notability and warrant an encyclopedic entry beyond the definition. No issue with having a page at Wiktionary. If there was ever a list of film industry terms, I would probably be fine with this term being added to such a list. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:06, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was able to find more sources in HighBeam, Newspapers.com and GoogleBooks- it is a notable article for women's studies. In Highbeam I was able to find an article from The Nation from 2000 ("the girls relegated to reading the scripts of the writers they were to "develop" are now running the studios"):

"the talented Amy Pascal emerged as a major power at Sony. Having risen through Columbia's development grind...she was promoted to chairwoman..."

I was also able to find references in an encyclopedia published by McFarland [1]. I think it's inherently notable, and it is helpful to develop the encyclopedia to have articles on industry jargon. Regarding WP:NOTNEO I found articles dating back to the 80s where the term is in use - I wasn't able to access the full article, but it is an established term that has been in use for decades.Seraphim System ^(talk) 21:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO, I'd also be open to perhaps a merge with something like gofer (although that page isn't great either). Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:56, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate that several women in this position have moved up, which makes it a subject of social significance. Use of "girl" for women in the workplace is not a a new term, it has a long history. If you look at turn of the century newspapers, you will see pages of adds looking for "girls". The article could be kept and expanded as an article about women.Seraphim System ^(talk) 01:06, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Newsweek and LA Times are two reliable sources and the content is far from trivial mention. Yes it is stub, but with potential of growing like any other article –Ammarpad (talk) 14:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the stuff Seraphim System found, I found this 1999 article about D-girls. I'd be interested in expanding the article later. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 23:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, in Creative Careers in Hollywood, (ISBN 1-58115-243-4) a 2002 book that I can access on EBSCOhost has an entire chapter (20-pages) devoted to the "D-Girl." Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The film is meet to the WP:GNG or not, I am not to sure, but it should improve to the WP:WOMEN right project. SA 13 Bro (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2017 (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.