Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flat Daddy


 * 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. --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Flat Daddy

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


 * Queried speedy delete. Its author claims that it is notable. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:20, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Flat Daddy is a registered trademark. This looks like an advert to me. MrMarmite (talk) 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Being a trademark is not a valid reason for deletion is it ? Or I see many articles going down. Moreover there does not seem to be any monopoly over the use of the name : the term is a trademark by one company, another owns the flatdaddies.com, another sells http://flatdaddy.com ... Overall, posters are produced by at last a half-dozen companies. And indeed you can make one on your printer --O fol  (t) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Advertising and nonnotable. Themfromspace (talk) 09:43, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep concept is notable having been used in many articles, TV shows and it it properly documented see for exemple this (—Marguerite Kelly, "How a Dad Can Be in Two Places at Once," The Washington Post, September 8, 2006 - —Brian Macquarrie, "Flat-out guarding those on home front," The Age, September 1, 2006 - —"Flat Daddy fills in on the homefront," Associated Press, July 19, 2003) + concept had two interwikis already, showing some further possible developments --O fol  (t) 10:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * note also references quoted in fr.wp When Soldiers Go to War, Flat Daddies Hold Their Place at Home, Katie Zezima, New York Times, 30 septembre 2006 and in de.wp ZDF-Meldung über Flat Daddys Süddeutsche-Meldung über Flat Daddys --O fol  (t) 10:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete or improve, or move to user space. maybe an article can be written, but I'm not convinced yet.  As is, it comes off as a dictionary definition of a Neologism, or an invention of uncertain notability. -Verdatum (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete non-notable neologism, dictdef, etc which isn't remotely referenced to reliable 3rd party sources within the article. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:25, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 * scientific reference does exist, like "At War in Iraq and Afghanistan: Children in US Military Families . Ambulatory Pediatrics, Volume 7 , Issue 1 , Pages 1 - 2     M . Chartrand , B . Siegel". And indeed flat daddies (and flat mommies) is considered a specific and to a certain extend novel way of coping with the prolonged absence of a family member and is a subject of controversial debates and studies. --O fol  (t) 01:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep reliable and verifiable sources covering the topic establish notability. Article was in need of expansion, not deletion. There are several dozen sources available in a Google News Archive search, almost all of which are specifically about the "Flat Daddy" concept, with many more available. I spent a few minutes and significantly expanded the article. Alansohn (talk) 03:09, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep - Kudos to Alansohn for improving the article and adding many citations of verifiable notability. Although the nomination for deletion was appropriate at the time, the article now clearly meets our standards.  I'd encourage editors who opined to "delete" to take a second look and reconsider their opinion. - Boston (talk) 03:32, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, I hate myself for voting to keep advertCruft, but it did merit mention in several newspapers. You could argue WP:NOTNEWS, but m'eh. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 03:57, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A reminder that it appears that the trademark was taken out to prevent profiteering, not to make money. While there may be firms making money on the deal, the firm noted in several articles has made most of them on a complimentary basis for the families of servicemembers. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 26 August 2008 (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.