Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eligible bachelor


 * 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 as a week has not suggested anything else (NAC). SwisterTwister  talk  06:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Eligible bachelor

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unnotable subset of Bachelor, as undeserving of a separate article as, say, Confirmed bachelor. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Very common and notable phrase in literature, media, etc. Thousands of hits in RSes, centrepiece of every Jane Austen novel, several books with it in the title, newspapers write lists of "Britain's most eligible bachelor", etc... what's the argument for it not being notable, exactly? Also a distinct concept from bachelor and confirmed bachelor, as should be obvious from simply reading the articles. Joe Roe (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I don't know what the nom meant by "unnotable" ("non-notable", perhaps?), but "eligible bachelor" satisfies WP:N, and that's what matters. If the nom wishes to merge the content of this article into Bachelor, AfD is not the place to propose that. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:22, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Per above. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 09:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 05:20, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I don't see a reason to delete this article on a notable phrase. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:32, 16 September 2016 (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.