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 speedy keep. Snow closed -- DQ (t) (e) 03:11, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

College dating[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Original research. Certain propositions may or may not be supported by the references, but the overall article is on a topic that isn't covered as such by sources. No need for content fork. ^Bongo_matic 06:48, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article does not even stick to its ostensible topic very well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:39, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- No recommendation, in light of the identification of potential sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:21, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject is notable (over 2k Google Books hits), many (over 1k) mentions in academic journals (for example, a source listed on talk: [1]). The article is currently poorly referenced, but while this is a reason to tag it with OR/various citation needed templates and such, it is hardly a reason to AfD it - particularly when a simple look at the talk page (which I see no indication the nominator have done), would suggest that this article is in the process of being developed (as part of an educational assignment). In such a situation, where it is clear that there are editors who want to improve this article in the the near future, if you want to help, going to the talk page and explaining the problems is known to be much more helpful, instead of the quite less friendly "AFD the n00b's article" threat approach. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 16:56, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. Notability looks pretty clear-cut to me.--Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus. All articles need to start somewhere, and notability is there. --Epistemophiliac (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well said Piotrus; its definitely notable, no question of notability. And besides, its not like this article is at a dead end, and will stay on like this forever. It is part of an assignment, and good chances are that it will be improved. Lynch 7 18:37, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus and WP:COMMON SENSE. This is the subject of thousands of books and it is a bit unfair to AFD an article that is actively under construction.Smallman12q (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Pitorus I would remind the nom not to WP:BITE newbies. Ronk01 talk
Note This deletion discussion was linked on the wikipedia-ambassadors list at Google Groups, associated with the Global Education Program. Dcoetzee 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is both a significant one and one with many good professional research sources available. It may become a magnet for college students with their own uninformed opinions about dating, but the same is true with many articles. Worth noting that the title here suffers from Americentrism: the article focuses on dating in a university setting, but it is only in the US that universities are referred to as "colleges" (nothing that a move can't fix). Dcoetzee 20:51, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the content is not good then it is an opportunity to improve it. The topic itself sounds to be quite suitable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The arguments above, if they can be called such, provide no citations at all. Beyond simply being an WP:ATA, the reference to GHITS is particularly spurious. There are millions of GHITS for "cold water", and yet the characteristics of water of varying temperatures can be adequately addressed at water with no need for a fork. Nobody has suggested that there is any benefit to the inclusion of more on the sub-topic of "college dating" than can be reasonably accommodated at the dating page. Outside of OR, there is no more than a sentence on the actual topic in the current article, so there's absolutely no justification for anything other than a redirect (if that) pending someone wishing to provide encyclopedic coverage of this topic. ^Bongo_matic 22:24, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Several hours ago, another editor has added a list of sources that should prove the notability of this subject beyond doubt. Before you make another comment, please check if the article has not improved and rendered your point moot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:33, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - The ghits mentioned above were academic papers, which are more likely to be reliable sources. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:34, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Indeed, particularly when it is easy to notice that the phrase in question ("college dating") is important enough to appear, numerous times, in the titles of books and articles, not only in their text. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 22:44, 27 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.