Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Three-date rule


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 17:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Three-date rule

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:NOT. Almost unreferenced (and impossible to reference) OR magnet. The single citation doesn't really relate to the subject, and in fact serves to disprove the central thesis of the article. Initiating this article is the only mainspace edit from the creator.  Horologium  (talk) 01:45, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment. More on the concept (the third date as the key litmus test for a new relationship) appears in GBooks and GNews searches for "third date" (see links added above). --Arxiloxos (talk) 02:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Dating. The concept is discussed there, and actually is one of the main points of that article.  So far sources have not been provided to show that it's a "rule." Borock (talk) 04:19, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Dating per Borock. ö   Brambleberry   of   RiverClan  14:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Dating where it is discussed in the U.S. and Canada section, which also solves its ethnocentric issue. --Lockley (talk) 03:36, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - Survey trivia about an unencyclopedic concept, written as though it is a real thing. Non-notable neologism, at best, pure bunk at worst... Urban Dictionary is thattaway -->   Carrite (talk) 04:31, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:44, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

 
 * Keep Satisfies Wikipedia's notability guideline via significant coverage in multitudinous books, which discuss it and affirm or deny it, but still give it the coverage needed to justify an article: :, , , , , , , . Countless more books look promising, but only offer snippets. Google news archive has additional sources with significant coverage: , . This is clearly not a neologism, but a well known concept. Edison (talk) 04:09, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, notable per sources found by Edison. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - besides the sources found, it can be referenced in many other sources in popular culture. For example, it was an ongoing trope in The Big Bang Theory. Bearian (talk) 18:55, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, L Faraone  00:44, 21 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment - Just because a phrase is used repeatedly does not make it an encyclopedic concept. This isn't. It's a folksy little in-joke in the dating world. Carrite (talk) 04:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Mostly per Edison. Although it's not the strongest case for notability since there's no single source with extreme depth on the subject, the number of sources and the depth given does suggest notability for the subject.  Additional reliable sources would always help, but those multiple references do appear to show enough notability to meet WP:GNG. - SudoGhost 04:12, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Dating. Notability is one thing, and there's likely enough to warrant a mention, but is there due weight to warrant an article?  At this point, I would disagree.   Red Phoenix  build the future...remember the past... 01:19, 22 June 2013 (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.