Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babymoon


 * 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Babymoon

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article was created to promote a film which has passed into blessed obscurity; there is little evidence anyone uses this term at all - especially in the sense the article uses it. One of the two cites that even mentions it uses it in a completely different sense. I have no idea how this junk passed AFC. Pinkbeast (talk) 01:29, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: I could only find this Romper article about the subject. I'd assume that article alone probably isn't enough to constitute "significant coverage" but I'll leave it to the AFD experts to decide. AdA&D  02:20, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. While the article does seem to have been created to promote a film (fortunately, the reference to the film has been removed from the article), the word "babymoon" is in use with the meaning indicated ("a vacation taken by couples when one of them is pregnant"). See this book, this book, Parents magazine, Travel Channel, Scientific American, and Reader's Digest, for example. I don't know whether that means that the article should be kept, but the word didn't just come out of nowhere and land in Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:21, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Reasonable catch, but still, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Is there anything actually significant or notable about going on holiday when pregnant? The article doesn't really suggest so. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:50, 16 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary. We do not have enough reliable source discussion of this as a social idea, and the focus on the use of the word, instead of focusing on the actions involved, which is what an encyclopedia article would do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete a non-notable neologism; I've only heard the term in promotional materials for vacation destinations. No need to point to wikt:babymoon power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 18:37, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Obviously this is clearly case of dictionary definition, which Wikipedia is not. It should be deleted. –Ammarpad (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.