Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bridesman


 * 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. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 13:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Bridesman

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article does not appear to be notable at all (a Google search returns dubious results (Yahoo! Answers, etc.) and the article is not linked to by any page in the article namespace. JulieSpaulding (talk) 10:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep do a Google news search for all dates and there are lots of results for in-depth, non-trivial articles in reliable sources, not just in the tabloids like the NY Post but in the broadsheets like the Washington Post where none other than Miss Manners weighs in even though we don't know what she thinks about it from the free part. Fortunately Groomsmaid hasn't quite caught on as well. Yet. Drawn Some (talk) 10:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - OK, there might be news articles on it, but what about other sources (books, online articles, etc.)? Would we keep articles that have been covered in the news once? Just my opinion - mind you, I'm not exactly a good source of information on this subject! JulieSpaulding (talk) 11:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not if it was one article but this seems to meet the general guidelines, see WP:NOTE. Drawn Some (talk) 11:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep.I found a couple of books dating back to the 1800s that give an idea of the historical usage of the term. |"The Table Book" and |"The Lover's Lexicon" (I've shortened both titles as they're incredibly long). Combined with the sources Drawn Some found regarding current usage, above, this could certainly be written into a decent article.--Susan118 (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * weak keep I think this might be a WP:NNN, but it certainly passes WP:N and probably slides by WP:NNN as the sources found above appear non-trivial. Hobit (talk) 01:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually closed this as "keep" with two !votes because I viewed them as sound but my close was reverted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge (or delete) If we get good sources, it should be merged to Wedding ceremony participants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:56, 2 June 2009 (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.