Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chick magnet

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 due to bad faith nomination. ArcAngel (talk) 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC) The result was keep per WP:SK. Withdrawn nomination with no outstanding delete !votes. NAC. Tim Song (talk) 12:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chick magnet (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

This meets WP:DICTDEF quite well. ArcAngel (talk) 01:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that this article has a construction tag on it. Why the heck would it be there? Because it needs constructing to make it past the definition article stage (otherwsie it would only be good for Wiktionary, obviously) the article IS attempted to be more than a mere dictionary definition, which was clearly informed on the talk page only minutes after the article's opening. Sure, if this was only a definition article WITH NO CONSTRUCTION TAG OR NOTE ON THE TALK PAGE OF INTENTIONS TO EXPAND SPECIFICALLY TO ADRESS THE DICTIONARY-DEFINITION-ONLY ARTICLE ISSUE then there would be a valid argument for deleting this article. As such, these claims were negated before they were even made per the construction tag (notification that the article isn't actually finished) and per the note (The article may currently be a mere dictionary definition but, per this note, there has been intension to overcome this and make the article more than what it is). Invalid.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 02:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A google news search even just over the last month indicates this is a very notable and well established subject in popular culture. I haven't even looked yet at the archives or google books. Plenty to write a good article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural keep. It's inappropriate to nominate an article with {{underconstruction}} for deletion unless there's no reasonable possibility that the article will meet the inclusion criteria, with certain exceptions not relevant here. This is not one of those few cases. Tim Song (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2009 (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.