Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/High-maintenance


 * 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 wi soft-redirect to Wiktionary. If a new article High-maintenance relationships were created, this could redirect there. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-02 08:49Z 

High-maintenance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is simply a dictionary/slang definition of a term, and provides no context or attribution that would make it an encyclopedic entry. Per WP:WINAD, it does not meet standards, and should be deleted. -- Haemo 03:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep The article is certainly in bad shape, but it could be turned into something decent. This is a pretty common phrase.  --Selket Talk 03:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - the term is frequently used in the circles that I move in. The article needs to be improved, but this provides a basis for that improvement. - Richardcavell 03:55, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - agree with above comments, article needs expanding and improving, not deleting (added expand and wikify templates). LordHarris 03:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is just across the line from pop psychology; high.maintenance+relationship on Google Books garners 615 results. Of course it also applies to e.g. clients, cars, yards ... so it can be expanded beyond the boy-girl dynamic.--Dhartung | Talk 04:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * That's an argument for articles on high-maintenance relationships and automobile maintenance and repair. Adjectives alone do not generally denote subjects.  Is it your opinion that this article be renamed and refactored?  Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is currently just a dicdef (although I disagree that it gives not context), but it can be expanded into an encyclopedic article.  The 1,2 million ghits seem a good indicator of notability. -- Black Falcon 04:36, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per my comments below. -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. How, exactly, can this be turned into an encyclopedia article? --N Shar 04:52, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm confused about this too. Other than giving examples of traits deemed to be "high maintenance" - really, what more is there to say that "this is what this slang term means".  --Haemo 08:37, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask the same question. high-maintenance lists this as an adjective.  Adjectives by themselves rarely denote encyclopaedia article subjects.  They have to have nouns accompanying them. Uncle G 18:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Despite my best efforts, I could not envisage an article that is about anything other than the term itself. It could be an article that discusses the multiple uses of the term, the origins of the term, people who have been described as high-maintenance (a bad idea for a section, I think), and so on, but these are all about the term itself.  Thus, delete per nom.  Unless ... is there a noun equivalent: high-maintenance..ity? maintenanceness? maintenancousity?  Ah, forget it.  -- Black Falcon 19:14, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete like any other slangdef. The prevalance of a slang term does not make it appropriate for an encyclopedia. Gazpacho 09:58, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. While this is obviously a real phrase, it's just that - a phrase, without any noteworthy cultural context - and hence belongs on Wiktionary. Hey, look, there it is! Some text might be worth merging, but none of it belongs here. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 10:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Since it's already on wiktionary, and is apparently just a slang definition... Zelse81 21:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as undefined slang--and the term is used in many other ways also, as of a girl-friend who requires expensive gifts. OR, and poor job of it:DGG 02:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dictionary.-- danntm T C 04:02, 26 February 2007 (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.