Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Gentleman

 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 DELETE

Second Gentleman
Retrieved from deleted as "neologism". Mikkalai 02:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, not notable. Megan1967 07:18, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * All this is good, notability and stuff, but since the term is mentioned in the "First Lady" article, shouldn't this article redirect there, if you don't want its current content, rather than deleted? Mikkalai 08:03, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I find no occurrence of the term "second gentleman" in First Lady. And the "current content" of this article is a redirection. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this remark was related to the Second Family article, which was also under VfD. Mikkalai 16:48, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Already a redirect to Second Family - David Gerard 09:21, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete - neologism. SteveW 21:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * It's a redirect! - 68.72.123.164 01:09, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Please comment on the usage if this term in the First Lady article, as well as "First Gentleman" in Daniel Mulhern and First Lady articles. If the term is used in Wikipedia, it must be explained. You cannot use neologisms in explaining other things. The word "First Gentleman" is not self-evident. Shakespeare used it, too :-) but in a totally different sense. Mikkalai 00:53, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * As I said, First Lady doesn't use this term at all. What you are asking us to comment upon does not in fact exist.  First Gentleman is a redirect to First Lady and has been since its own deletion discussion (see Votes for deletion/First Gentleman).  Since (according to Google) there's no occurrence of the term "second gentleman" in Wikipedia at all, the argument that it should be explained because it is used has a fundamental flaw. I note in passing that they are two words, moreover. Uncle G 13:56, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)
 * Probably the article itself should explain it, then. WP isn't the place for coining neologisms. Delete. Radiant_* 07:25, Apr 5, 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.