Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Make-out party

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep. ugen 64 21:46, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Make-out party
Entirely un-encyclopedic as it stands. I doubt it could ever become much better than it is. Starwiz 04:04, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Research. Ok, I found a few links so far: I will let yall run with this and see what happens. I will not be surprised if views are/are not changed due to the links. However, I think most of the links are fan sites/dating sites. Zscout370 21:53, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete --Silas Snider (talk) 04:07, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * I trust you mean Make-out party (to which I've switched the header), not its redirect Makeout party? Delete in any event. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:49, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * That's the one; I didn't notice the redirect at first...sorry about the confusion. Starwiz 02:35, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, unencylcopedic, and they even misspelled hors d'oeuvres! DaveTheRed 05:51, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, better than nothing. Kappa 09:03, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge with other minor variations on festivities. Radiant_* 10:50, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be the work of a troll. HiramvdG 11:58, 21 Mar 2005 (CET)
 * Comment, maybe some experienced editor can turn this into a viable stub? Mgm|(talk) 11:03, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. &#8212;Markaci 2005-03-21 T 12:18 Z
 * Keep and allow for organic growth. VfD is not cleanup.  --GRider\talk 17:50, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I am sure there is an article somewhere that details the different types of parties that exist.  This will be a perfect candidate to be stuck there. Zscout370 19:20, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment: I updated the page and I wonder what yall think about it. Zscout370 19:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Suspicious of anything created by User:SamuraiClinton. Maybe redirect to swinging? Chris 21:16, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I do not believe it should be redirected to swinging, since swinging involves BDSM and other various sexual practices. The main goal at swinging parties is to engage in sexual activities with other couples, mainly intended for adults.  Make out parties' goals are for people to meet new people, not to engage in full blown sex. Zscout370 21:34, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, original research, no potential to become encyclopedic. Zscout370's edits are an improvement but the content still doesn't need to be anywhere in WP.  Don't redirect to swinging, which is usually specific to married people (but not to B&D nor S&M).  This article appears centered on unmarried teenagers, not to say "lacking in emotional maturity".  Barno 21:39, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I give you a few points there, Barno, since this is the first time I heard of this type party. I think that we can keep this article tucked in the back of our minds and try to find something that talks about it (hoping we can avoid blogs). Also, thanks for the kind words. Zscout370 21:49, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Yahoo Search
 * Google Search
 * FAQ
 * Delete, nn make-outcruft. ComCat 01:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Question. I keep on seeing the term "cruft" show up on here. What does that even mean?  Can you show me examples?  TIA. Zscout370 03:25, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * See Guide to Votes for deletion. &mdash;Korath (Talk) 04:17, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * It means "I don't like this topic but I can't be bothered to explain why". Kappa 05:47, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Please read Guide to Votes for deletion and Fancruft for the proper meaning. I consider your attitude of giving a newcomer a misleading answer to stress your inclusionist position very lacking in taste. Vlad M V  &#1645; talk 20:29, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't regard it as misleading, newbies deserve honest answers based on observation of actual usage. Kappa 20:59, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Rather, it means "IMHO this topic is trivial and only of interest to a small group of people" (e.g. pokecruft, schoolcruft, etc). It is a valid argument, if a POV one. Radiant_* 09:20, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Topic is not encyclopedic. android&harr;talk 03:34, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * keep Yuckfoo 06:52, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep valid article. Grue 16:46, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Under the current title, it's hard to imagine how this could become anything other than vague opinion and personal observation. From the earnest tone, I can't help suspecting that the author is 14 years old. Isomorphic 20:50, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. This obviously needs work, but it seems like a valid article. Binadot 04:50, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep (for the time being) see if it pans out into something better. It has potential. Saopaulo1 07:12, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Appears to describe an actual phenomena, albeit one I had never heard of before this article. See this article for an example; the searches listed below contain more. --Jacobw 14:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per Starwiz's original insight. Maybe (mayyyyyyyybe) the material would fit into an article on adolescent sexual practices in the US, or something, but it doesn't stand alone. FreplySpang 20:31, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete DJ Clayworth 20:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Maybe some ignorant parent doesn't know what it is their kids are going to...lol...Zardiw 22:27, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete. Feels like original research. From what I know, the term is fairly subjective. Might be worth a transwiki, if it's not already there. --InShaneee 05:17, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Weak Delete feels more suited for something like urbandictionary.com, not an article in an encyclopedia. Rmrfstar 23:01, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.