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. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 07:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of terms of endearment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article was created as a content fork from terms of endearment. Despite the good intentions, it's becoming a dumping ground for unsourced additions. I could just remove 90% of the terms as unreferenced and seldom used, but AFD seems like a better place to have this discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 17:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, sweet! GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No reason given. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, baby! LOL! Given the stereotype of the typical Wikipedia fanatic as a "nerdy boy", this doesn't help change that image. I'm pretty sure that guys won't need to consult this before they go out on a date. Mandsford (talk) 17:33, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image isn't a valid reason - look up all the articles Wikipedia has on BDSM. That it's not a date resource isn't a valid reason either. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easily improved as I have just demonstrated by adding an entry with a source. See WP:PROBLEM. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I thought I invented Honeybunny! Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honeybunny is a good one. I showed the article to my girlfriend (a good test) and she spotted this one and said it was a song. Me, I was thinking of Pulp Fiction... Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I can't think what information this page is trying to convey, or what someone might be looking up that would lead them to this page (other than using it as a thesaurus, which wikipedia is not). The problem is not sourcing that these words might be used as terms of endearment (though I doubt that the OED has an entry for honeyloverton or cuteson), but that even sourced the article would be a dictionary. Sorry, my wookie. RJC ^Talk 19:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC) Keep. I am persuaded by jakarr's reason for why the page should exist: better an unimportant page be a magnate for those kinds of changes than force editors to fight a never-ending and vigilant struggle to maintain the integrity of a useful article, I think. RJC ^Talk 23:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might be merged back into Terms of endearment as it is currently lacking in prose content and so is too dry by itself. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Examples. The article gives very few examples. This list does a much better job, and is useful as a writing resource. Besides, if it determined to be a dictionary entry, then it should be transwikied rather than deleted - deleting it wastes the effort that went into developing it. The Transhumanist (talk) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and source...spread the love around. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:01, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm sorry my little snickerdoodle, but I'm afraid you and I are just not right for each other. Please don't hold this against me, my little snugglepuffin. I'm sure there are plenty of other wikis out there who will be better to you than I ever was. Farewell, sillybritches. (P.S. How big a nerd do you have to be to call your girlfriend a "Wookie"?) --Hnsampat (talk) 23:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's more likely that it's a term of endearment from a girl to a big hairy boyfriend... but it could happen, I guess. Generally, terms of endearment HAVE to be silly, or they wouldn't be cute. Mandsford (talk) 01:14, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - First, it's not a content fork, it's an expansion of the article and complements it well. Second, it's not simply a dictionary entry, because some of the entries are blue-linked, which makes it a navigation resource. Third, "Dumping ground of unsourced additions" is not a valid reason for deleting - this describes Wikipedia as a whole very well. Ninety-five percent of Wikipedia is unsourced, and the solution is to source it, NOT DELETE IT. If we deleted 95% of Wikipedia, it would be ruined. The nom said "I could just remove 90% of the terms as unreferenced, but AFD seems like a better place to" [get rid of it] - now you know how to use policy to delete almost anything you want in two easy lessons. There isn't much difference between that and vandalism. WP:VER applies to most of Wikipedia, and can be used as an excuse to delete any of that -- therefore, I'd like to see more than this standard excuse -- how does this list differ from pages we should keep? The list has some good examples of terms of endearment, so I think we should keep it around so that someone can source it eventually (either as a stand-alone list or merged back into the article), and in the meantime, the dubious entries could be moved to the talk page pending finding sources for them. The Transhumanist 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Sourcing will be a tall order... where do you trace the origin of someone calling another person "googleybear"? For anyone who wants to give it a try, start with The Book of Lists #2 by Irving Wallace, et al., which actually had something about pet names that famous people had for each other. I suppose that if we have lists of four-letter words, we can have lists of cute names too. It seems more like a category on Pyramid or Family Feud, however. Mandsford (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll take that challenge. Here are some good examples of usage for "googly bear". The first is an amusing example of it being used as political campaigning jargon (the opposite of mud-slinging). Google news Colonel Warden (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The only reason I created this article was to move the long list of examples from Term of endearment. My thought was that if people had another place to add terms like "snugglepuffin", they wouldn't in that article. The original article has its own problems, so any small improvement seemed to be a good thing. —jakarr 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This list has been contributed to by many people, and does represent both widely used terms of endearment and more local/personal variants. It captures the essence of Wikipedia by providing readers with information that is relevant, and yet would not be captured in a print encyclopedia. Keep! --Davinox (talk) 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Has good potential, and as per Jakarr, clears up Terms of endearment. --Patar knight (talk) 23:36, 19 January 2008 (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.