- 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 keep. Liz Read! Talk! 08:12, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Dear husband (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't really think that this bit of internet slang is really particularly notable. WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:39, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep (I wrote this article) Referencing WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary, specifically the section WP:WORDISSUBJECT, this article does go beyond a dictionary definition. The first paragraph is a definition and etymology, yes. But the second and third paragraphs directly discuss the social significance of the phrase, citing four academic sources. These paragraphs are enough to satisfy the guideline, and the sources themselves are enough for WP:GNG. I agree that the phrase itself, a priori, doesn't seem like it would be notable, but for our purposes, and as demonstrated by the article as written, it is. Melchoir (talk) 21:56, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep <strikethrough>and now I'm quietly but aggressively plotting a whole series on internet language specific to female dominated Internet forums. Do we already have baby dust and sticky vibes? What about FIAR? HWOT? So many options.</strikethrough> [Sorry this was out of order. jengod (talk) 23:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)]jengod (talk) 01:56, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I added material about how DH is used rhetorically/psychologically, some lexicographic analysis, some sources about its age, and several examples of sociological research centering on communities where DH is an impt element of intragroup communication. jengod (talk) 03:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 01:51, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOTDICT, and even if the article were sourced better it still wouldn’t satisfy GNG. Serratra (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- What do you mean by this? An article on any topic if sourced sufficiently can meet GNG. matt91486 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I can see the NOTDICT argument, but this is very well sourced and offers additional context, so I think does go beyond this. matt91486 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep AFD motivation is invalid, this is clearly not just a dictionary entry.★Trekker (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2023 (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.