Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sissy

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 22:19, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sissy

A dicdef, and nothing more. Voortle 19:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is quite notable. It's not a good article, but it doesn't deserve to be deleted. Sparsefarce 19:34, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The article is pretty anemic, but it has potential, I think. Serpent-A 20:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's already more than a dicdef, and according to the Sissyphobia article, there's a whole book about it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notes on various usages and societal contexts take it beyond a dictdef. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:39, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, now that I've merged the sissyphobia article into this article, making the sissy article sound more encyclopedic. Voortle 21:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - my concern is consistency in application of rules. WP:WINAD indicates that articles should not be usage guides, which this article basically is. In such cases, if an article is to be kept, I think that the burden of proof rests on proving worthiness, if not exceptional status. This article is completely unsourced, and would need to be very clearly not OR in order to meet a burden of proof to be kept. I say Weak Delete because I see a value in such articles, however the article's topic is not an exceptional case, so either the guidelines must be changed or this article must be deleted. Please note that I previously commented on the article's Talk page. NOTE: Voortle was making changes simultaneous to my slow thinking and typing. I think that the action of merging Sissyphobia was not ideal. "Sissyphopia" as a topic avoids usage issues that impinge on "sissy". I had previously reverted the redirect before seeing Voortle's comment here. I'm going to just save my comment now and wait for things to settle. ENeville 21:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid stub. SchmuckyTheCat 07:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep stub not a dicdef.--Nilfanion (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"keep" the term, all kind of expressions should be consider in a really inclusive dictionary — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.241.82.33 (talk • contribs)

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.