Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MILF

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. Withdrawn by nominator based on apparent consensus to keep (non-admin closure) Triona (talk) 06:57, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MILF

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

Delete, or if it does not already exist on Wiktionary, transwiki. This is a dictionary entry and unlikely to amount to more than a trivia collection. It's not likely to develop into encyclopedic content even though it's place in popular culture is at least supported by references. Triona (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification. Sources and notability are not the issue here. The issue is that this is a dictionary term, and that as such, it's going to be really difficult to turn it into an encyclopedic article. WP:NOT#DICTIONARY. Keeping this here isn't going to build anything more than a place to file a bunch of trivia - there's too little to write about beyond a definition. Triona (talk) 06:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - By this clarification, this becomes a malformed nomination because the post below mine shows that the term has existed for more than four years and another editor has demonstrated the article can be turned into an encyclopedic effort. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:40, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiktionary had had MILF for four years already when this article was first created. Uncle G (talk) 18:09, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships - I can't see the acronym itself being notable, and per wp:notdic, it's thus not a suitable candidate for an article. The phenomenon can be covered in the article previously mentioned. --Claritas § 18:45, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP This popular Acronym is rapidly becomming a household name. It's not really a "dictionary" word, but more of an Encyclopedic term that needs to be explained. It's also an evolving term which, although originally began as 'Mother(s)' is being applied to women that look or are from about ages 30 to 45, whether they are Mothers or not. This this is a New term which will eventually become a well-known and often used term, it's something that people need to understand it's original, current, and future meanings. Glenn Francis (talk) 21:56, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information wp:info, and the future well-known-ness of the term is irrelevant per wp:crystal. --Claritas § 22:19, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is sort of a tough one, since MILF is now part of popular culture. But this is a dictionary definition in the final analysis and, repeat after me, "Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary!" Carrite (talk) 23:04, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seriously now, WP is not a dictionary. Cindamuse (talk) 23:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As disgusting a concept as it is, it is quite obviously notable. Keep per WP:ODD and WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 23:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per everyone else tbhis is a dictionary page.Slatersteven (talk) 23:40, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a notable cultural concept in fairly widespread use. Let me point out also that deletion is not a valid option either way, because there is an unambiguously notable organization that is known by the same acronym. So this could be a separate article on the MILF concept, it could be a disambig page with a brief note about the MILF concept, or it could be a simple redirect to the article on the organization—but deletion would be silly. Everyking (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My gut feeling says keep, but I can't see how the article can be expanded beyond its current dictionary definition and trivial "in popular culture" references. Epbr123 (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This nothing more than a dictionary entry and is highly unlikely ever to be more than a dictionary entry. Malleus Fatuorum 13:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or make a disambiguation page for this and "Something Something Liberation Front" Dicdef adequately covered already at Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms. If this is deletable as a dicdef, what about Cougar (slang)? Edison (talk) 15:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms. DCEdwards ¹⁹⁶⁶ 15:42, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough real-world usage and WP:RS to meet WP:GNG. Lugnuts (talk) 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, we are !voting on the concept not the current state of the article, lots and lots of usage can be added and there is an abundance of internal article links. I never go to Wictionary from inside Wikipedia. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep looks notable to me PvsKllKsVp (talk) 00:34, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I wouldn't mind keeping it and there has been policies mentioned here that would seem to imply "keep" (WP:ODD and WP:GNG), but it is one of those articles that's a maintenance nightmare and it's just not a good encyclopedic article. Redirect it to Age disparity in sexual relationships#Slang terms per DCEdwards suggestion. Dawnseeker2000 18:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Looks like it goes beyond a basic dictionary definition as well as shows mainstream notability of the term. –MuZemike 04:38, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - per Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )'s introduction of reliable sources, cleanup and other edits. The The O'Reilly Factor transcript easily seals the deal that this term is in the mainstream and meets WP:GNG. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:47, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Any objection to merging this into Age disparity in sexual relationships, and if it should become large enough there to split back into it's own article, then so be it? Right now this is a dictionary definition, no matter how much people say it can be expanded. As a dictionary definition, policy says it's deletable. As a part of coverage on Age disparity in sexual relationships it would probably have better visibility and a chance to develop. Triona (talk) 07:02, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I was going to base my reasoning off of WP:NOT#DICTIONARY "Encyclopedia articles are about a person, or a group, a concept, a place, a thing, an event, etc. In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject..." That last bit is currently under discussion. I don't believe any deletion based on that part of NOTDICTIONARY should go through until that is reconciled. There are other reasons in that policy that apply. Namely: Concept. MILF is not just a term. It is a concept that has become so widely known that it has its own genre of porn. That alone is sufficient for an article. It transcends just being a fetish involving older women (since that could be an article called "Older woman fetish") though. The concept has become part of pop culture and is reflected in various forms of media. But if it is to be deleted and "Older woman fetish" is to be created it needs to be put up for a move discussion since "MILF" is how it is known. All of the notability arguments should touch on the fact that Google News, Google Book, your favorite video store, and God only knows where else point to it being common enough. And it is already more than a dictionary definition so a merge is not adequate. Cptnono (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP I have just seen term used in a forum by someone who had misunderstood it and it's useful to be able to put up a link to show the correct meaning.
Keep An article about a word doesn't make it a "dicdef with noise". The word nigger is also plausibly a "dicdef" article with nothing more than trivia as well, no one would dare delete that. Redirect to Age disparity in sexual relationships based on a review of both. The target article adequately attempts to cover what's notable and important about the term, and is small enough that any additional pertinent detail would fit nicely there. Casascius♠ (talk) 16:00, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I am surprised by the overuse of the rationale that Wikipedia is not censored. Fuck fuckety shitty shitty motherfucking shitty shitty fuck. It's not about censorship. The most prominently represented reasons for MILF being a deletion candidate have nothing to do with it being a reference to profanity. Sometimes it seems as though all common sense goes out the window when someone wants to remove something that contains profanity because no matter why they want to remove it, it's gotta be "censorship". I agree there are good arguments as to why the article should be kept, but WP:CENSOR is not one of them. Casascius♠ (talk) 18:19, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWe don't need someone telling us what words are good or bad. Keep spiritual censorship of the Internet! —Preceding unsigned comment added by M1kem1lls1369 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Above user is a sock/meatpuppet; no other edits. PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:26, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia should not be a clearing house for all the silly stuff computer nerds come up with in their mother's basements. Wikipedia is not a "urban dictionary for idiots." Frank Fascarelli (talk) 01:25, 15 August 2010 (UTC)User:Frank Fascarelli is the newest incarnation of banned editor User:Torkmann.[reply]
KEEP. The usual moral/religious objections as a rationale for deletion, that were raised and disregarded in the previous AFD [1]. WP:NOTCENSORED stands. Archivey (talk) 17:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not just a definition - a widely applied concept and popular joke, sourced with many applications, and not at all synonymous with "age disparity in sexual relationships" or whatever sanitized professorial term is being recommended here. --MelanieN (talk) 23:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How does WP:NOTCENSORED apply here, censorship wasn't a consideration in the deletion rationale. Triona (talk) 00:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I fail to see why this article has been nominated again after we discussed and arrived at a consensus in this previous afd: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mother_I'd_like_to_fuck_(MILF)? It pains me that people cruise around wiki looking for articles to be offended by! MILF is a Social/Pornography/Media even Comedy catagorisation. If it was a simple dictionary definition then the article wouldn't be as long as it already is. Age dispartity article is a seperate social issue, the common usage of MILF in media and every day language is sufficient justification for keeping this article (again!, untill the next 'moral' idiot takes offence) andi064 ^{T . C} 12:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I see why this article was been nominated, the first time. The same free speech discussion, repeated, does little. Words are weapons. Some of them hurt and or offend. It is foolish not to know the words, even if you don't plan to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TedJostedt (talk • contribs) 02:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC) — TedJostedt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep per WP:NOTCENSORED Whose Your Guy (talk) 03:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG, not just a definition. The previous AfD already pointed that out. Jarkeld (talk) 06:43, 17 August 2010 (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.