Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-night stand

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 (NAC) Garibaldi Baconfat 00:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One-night stand

One-night stand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

• Topic seems to be a recent Neologism with few or no Academic research or even
  Human sexual behavior or Casual sex. GateKeeper ^(talk) @ 07:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, widely used term with substantial cultural significance. Everyking (talk) 07:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – some references for you, courtesy of Google Books.
  WP:BEFORE – read it. — æk^Talk 08:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Quite contrary to the nomination, the term has been used in academic research, if you look in Google Scholar you will find papers dating back to the 1980s using this term. Also, per Æk. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:45, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Passes
  talk) 14:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for the reasons already given. Maccy69 (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork *^YES! 12:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• This has been relisted as it was closed after only a few hours. It appears to be a speculative (original research) and unsourced article that may, as the nominator suggests, fall foul of some of our guidelines. On the other hand, it could be a viable search term. But would Wiktionary be a better place for information on such a term? My inclination is that the nominator is correct, and that the article, such as it is, is misplaced here on Wikipedia. However, my comments are neutral as I have relisted this. SilkTork *^YES! 12:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After considering this a bit more, I feel that a redirect to Casual_sex#One-night_stand would be the best course of action. The Casual sex article needs cleaning up, and perhaps merging in a few other related terms. "One-night stand" is a well used term, but the term needs to be directed to the appropriate place. SilkTork *^YES! 15:18, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per the nominator (except for neologism and academic research), Wikipedia is not a dictionary and the article is poorly written. Tcrow777 ^Talk 13:27, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why in the world was this relisted after everyone had voted "keep"? Somehow, I don't think that we're going to get a different result. I'll add to the apparently not-snowbally-enough list of keeps by saying that the nomination seems to be based on a misunderstanding that the phrase "one night stand" referred to as a neologism. It's about as novel as a lava lamp. Mandsford (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a well-established term and certainly not a neologism. Numerous sources are available from which the page can be expanded. The fact that it is poorly written is not a deletion reason and, since, it deals with the concept not the phrase, it is not a dicdef. The way forward is to re-write the page from the many references available. Bridgeplayer (talk) 13:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Easily referencable concept, appears in scholarly work, other reasons listed by the nominator are fixable by simple cleanup by anyone so inclined. --Jayron32 14:01, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and re-close- I non-admin closed the original as a snowball keep, and even with a delete vote now, I still think that was the correct path to take. Subject is easily encyclopedic, and there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that this can or should be deleted. Umbralcorax (talk) 14:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per all above. (I'd love to know where "a recent Neologism" came from - speaking has someone who had some (and referred to them as such) in the early part of the 2000s.) I also can't believe that it was re-opened. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:07, 7 January 2010 (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.