211:
There are six different sources listed, however they may not be the best ones. I can create an article on a spinoff of psychologist fluff and dig up six primary sources. That doesn't mean anything. It's only been pointed out in several women's magazines, I would think that every single little article
148:
Completely unsourced original research. No notability established, and the "no original research" policy is non-negotiable. Survived an AfD over a year ago, keeps said to cleanup and source the article and no one ever did. Can't find any reference to this in scholarly sources.
212:
on spinoffs of psychological fluff that they make up would be here in an article in
Knowledge then. Why keep this one? Of the six sources, three are IGN and Askmen (those sites tend to be little more than professional forums run just by males, mind you) and TV.com. ―
86:
81:
261:
per nom. At risk of sounding pretentious, I don't think Cosmo is an authority on language, or that askmen.com is an authority on anything. If we were talking about whether or not
141:
243:
Anybody could write a book. That still won't make it suitable for
Knowledge. I'm sure there's books on other psychological fluff that's not on Knowledge either. ―
76:
199:
I would say is a reliable source, and probably AskMen.com as well. I agree there's a lot of original research here, but it's certainly salvageable.
265:
was a legitimate fashion designer, I think using
Cosmopolitan would be a decent reference. That aside, I think it is incredible that
114:
109:
17:
306:
287:
278:
247:
230:
216:
203:
186:
158:
59:
182:
118:
283:
Why would Cosmo have to be an expert on language? The article is not primarily about the term, but about the concept.
101:
55:
244:
213:
321:
36:
320:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
297:. I agree that it needs some serious cleanup, but that nobody has done so probably doesn't warrant deletion. -
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
170:
274:
266:
174:
178:
154:
302:
226:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
221:
Did you want books, instead? Try page 64 of ISBN 0811852121 and page 71 of ISBN 0972016619.
105:
195:. It's hardly "completely unsourced"; there are in fact six different sources listed.
270:
284:
200:
150:
298:
222:
135:
97:
65:
167:. It's not bad, why not keep it for reference sake? I can find no flaw here.
50:
314:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
131:
127:
123:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
87:Articles for deletion/Friend zone (3rd nomination)
82:Articles for deletion/Friend zone (2nd nomination)
324:). No further edits should be made to this page.
8:
74:
269:has an entry that nobody's disputing.
7:
72:
24:
77:Articles for deletion/Friend zone
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
307:04:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
288:23:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
279:22:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
248:20:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
231:18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
217:16:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
204:14:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
187:22:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
159:07:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
60:04:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
341:
317:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
71:AfDs for this article:
189:
173:comment added by
332:
319:
168:
139:
121:
48:(default keep).
34:
340:
339:
335:
334:
333:
331:
330:
329:
328:
322:deletion review
315:
112:
96:
93:
91:
69:
58:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
338:
336:
327:
326:
310:
309:
292:
291:
290:
255:
254:
253:
252:
251:
250:
236:
235:
234:
233:
206:
190:
146:
145:
92:
90:
89:
84:
79:
73:
70:
68:
63:
54:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
337:
325:
323:
318:
312:
311:
308:
304:
300:
296:
293:
289:
286:
282:
281:
280:
276:
272:
268:
267:Ladder Theory
264:
260:
257:
256:
249:
246:
242:
241:
240:
239:
238:
237:
232:
228:
224:
220:
219:
218:
215:
210:
209:Strong delete
207:
205:
202:
198:
194:
191:
188:
184:
180:
176:
172:
166:
163:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
143:
137:
133:
129:
125:
120:
116:
111:
107:
103:
99:
95:
94:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
67:
64:
62:
61:
57:
53:
52:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
316:
313:
294:
262:
258:
208:
197:Cosmopolitan
196:
192:
164:
147:
49:
46:No consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
245:LADY GALAXY
214:LADY GALAXY
169:—Preceding
98:Friend zone
66:Friend zone
295:Weak keep
193:Weak keep
271:-- Kevin
263:Jane Doe
183:contribs
175:Sderenzi
171:unsigned
151:Chardish
142:View log
56:contribs
299:Headwes
223:Uncle G
115:protect
110:history
285:Powers
259:Delete
201:Powers
119:delete
136:views
128:watch
124:links
51:JERRY
16:<
303:talk
275:talk
227:talk
179:talk
165:Keep
155:talk
132:logs
106:talk
102:edit
140:– (
305:)
277:)
229:)
185:)
181:•
157:)
134:|
130:|
126:|
122:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
301:(
273:(
225:(
177:(
153:(
144:)
138:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.