Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missionary dating (2nd nomination)

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. postdlf (talk) 18:52, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missionary dating[edit]

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

Still no reliable sources since last AfD: neologism, original research Jonathunder (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Jinkinson talk to me 01:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd like to see where this article is going. Fxm12 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:12, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has gone absolutely nowhere in the last year. Where do you think it can go? Tell you what: I'll change my !vote to keep if you can make it go somewhere encyclopedic with reliable, independent sources. Right now, we've got an about.com link and a blurb from a self-published book. Jonathunder (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's really more of a dictionary definition. Missionary dating exists of course but there are no sources cited which give it substantial coverage. The Bible quotes are not about dating, and were put in the article by original research -- as the article itself admits. ("Nevertheless, 1 Corinthians 7 could be interpreted to protect this practice.") Wiktionary yes, and a line or two in Dating and/or Religious conversion would be fine. Not enough material for an article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 03:37, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: [1] is about missionary dating. 212.225.174.69 (talk) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

But comments by a reader are not a very reliable source. Kitfoxxe (talk) 01:56, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[2] also treats the topic of missionary dating. Not that about.com is a reliable source, but it establishes the interest on the topic. The other 23.000.000 hits on google prove that it is at least a recurring topic around Christians. Many web-sites treat the topic seriously. 212.225.174.69 (talk) 02:32, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and incubate. This is exactly what incubation is for. De Guerre (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sending the article to incubation is, of course, subject to WP:AI?, and in particular, having someone willing to work on it. That person is not me. De Guerre (talk) 07:17, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marital conversion per the suggestions at the previous AFD. Anything with millions of Google hits is a likely search topic; I ended up at the article because I wondered what, if anything, we had on the topic. Since (pre)marital conversion is the goal of missionary dating, they're sufficiently closely related to justify a redirect. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't in on the previous AfD, but Marital conversion doesn't appear to be the same thing, and the AfD admitted as such. It's only a related topic, not a subtopic. De Guerre (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. AfD is not meant to be the place to advertise articles for incubation, or rescue, or fixing. This stub, while terribly sourced, has many potential sources. Eventually it will get fixed. For what it's worth, it does not seem to be that new of a phrase; WP:NEO is meant for stuff made up last Monday. Bearian (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. Nomination smacks of impatience with improvement. --BDD (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2013 (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.