Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frenemy (2nd nomination)


 * 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 00:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Frenemy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

neologism, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources, no indication that it would ever be more than this. Currently article is essentially a long dictionary definition with an unreferenced list of mentions in pop culture. RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep due to sources that pass WP:RS. Dalejenkins | 01:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep concur that this neologism has entered the mainstream and passed through the dicdef stage sufficiently to deserve mention. JJL (talk) 01:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment For a "mainstream" neologism, the aren't many reliable sources in the article.--RadioFan (talk) 22:59, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * How many RSs does a typical mainstream neologism have? MyDog22 (talk) 23:21, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Commentnotable subjects have "significant coverage" of the subject in 3rd party sources. The references in the article mention the word but are focused on something else.  These references do provide some evidence of it's use but only the CNN link below is focused on the word itself.  WP:N doesn't put a number on "significant" but I'm sure it's > 1.  The references proove the word exists and is used but not that its notable enough to warrant a Wikipedia article.--RadioFan (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. The term is now mainstream. Majoreditor (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete has only one RS which discussed the term in detail. MyDog22 (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's plenty more reliable sources which describe and utilize the term. Take, for example, this article from CNN.com. Majoreditor (talk) 02:20, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Alright, keep. MyDog22 (talk) 09:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment The phrase has come into frequent popular usage this week due to Gwyneth Paltrow. I'm sure many, if not all, of these sources could prove useful . Dalejenkins | 11:26, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sufficient reliable source coverage was already established in the previous AfD. DHowell (talk) 05:25, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep term is in mainstream use. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:21, 21 April 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.