Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/He never married


 * 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. Michig (talk) 06:47, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

He never married

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Original research with lack of notability? The 3/4 references used only mention the claim in passing, while the remaining one (the 3rd one) states that it was used as such IN SOME CASES. Something the article doesn't mention

Most importantly, I am not a native speaker, but from what I know the first thing that comes to mind when u hear the phrase "He never married" is that the person in question has - you guessed it - never married. And as such, I am pretty sure wikipedia doesn't allow for creation of articles about common phrases Openlydialectic (talk) 06:30, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The use of the phrase as a code is confirmed by The Obituary as Collective Memory and this refutes the claim that this is OR. The more general topic is highly notable as entire books are written about it such as Bachelors: The Psychology of Men who Haven't Married or So Why Have You Never Been Married?.  There is therefore plenty of scope for expansion and this is a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion, per our editing policy".  "Well preserved" is another code phrase that the nominator may not be familiar with... Andrew D. (talk) 07:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename/Merge A phrase/term is usually not notable enough to stand on its own, but as it seems to have a suitable sources about the subject directly... I would lean on keep as there is room for expansion into an article about obituary codewords. If that already exists, I recommend merging this with that article (I couldn't find anything with a cursory search). Jcmcc (Talk) 08:56, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  Kpg  jhp  jm  09:06, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of sources that deal directly with this particular phrase and discuss its meaning. There is no OR. I believe that the nominator's confusion may stem from a lack of familiarity with British culture. It is a peculiarly British phrase as it dates from a time when homosexuality was illegal in Britain. The possible double meaning of indicating homosexuality or simply never having been married is dealt with directly by the article and the sources and was at the time of nomination, contrary to what the nominator says, in this section "Nigel Rees dated its use to the second half of the twentieth century and notes that it can also be used without any implication of homosexuality". Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:45, 15 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Thanks to the hard work of Philafrenzy in digging up further reliable sources, this article easily passes WP:GNG, and makes the article more than substantial enough to not consider renaming or merging. Edwardx (talk) 11:10, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has been improved. --Theredproject (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as needing improvement and check for OR/SYNTH/whatever. Philafrenzy's work does not appear to be bad, at least not as bad as what he failed to remove from what was there before his edits, but the article still has problems that I think might be better address with deleting or merging than by other means. It's not policy-based but personally I really don't like articles with titles that looks like simple English phrases, and given that the article now includes coverage of the separate phrase "confirmed bachelor" I think LGBT euphemisms in obituaries would be a better, and more inclusive, title. Is "She never married" not used? I can imagine "confirmed bachelorette" not being a thing, but did old-fashioned newspaper obituaries avoid "he was gay" but use "she was a lesbian" freely? If we have articles on other equivalent phrases, I think that merging them into a single article would be better and avoid messy titles like this one, and if don't then this article should probably be expanded to cover them, and be renamed and refocused accordingly. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 02:03, 16 September 2018 (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.