Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Preacher's Kid

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 of the debate was - kept

Preacher's Kid

Junk dictdef. --fvw* 03:35, 2004 Dec 22 (UTC)

• Keep. How is this junk? There aren't stereotypes about the "Mailman's Kid" or the "Principal's Kid" the way there are about Preacher's Kids. CPS 03:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Not encyclopaedic. Its not as if you will not know that a Preacher's Kid is a child of a preacher, or that they will either follow in their parents footsteps or rebel. ~ mlk ^{✉ ♬} 04:27, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC) ~
• Keep. It is a well-known term and does refer to stereotypes. Could grow into a useful article. -Rholton 04:43, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Useless drivel. Megan1967 04:44, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• I've had my fill of Stereotype 2 Preacher's Kids (daughters), but this article deserves a delete. —ExplorerCDT 07:32, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  • Just curious. Since you acknowledge that the stereotype (or the reality) exists, is it the quality of the article that leads you to a delete vote? -Rholton 17:18, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete Honestly don't see the point of this articleRobert Pendray 07:38, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Well-known stereotype. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 07:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep -- Jmabel | Talk 09:35, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete -- This page is just junk and could never be useful.--naryathegreat 17:00, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)
• Some Additional Info: Google search for "preachers kid" returns 3370 pages. searching Amazon.com for "preachers kid" in the title returns 33 books, published from 1958 to present. -Rholton 17:45, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• 1) This article is an orphan. 2) Other than the discussion of the stereotype, the phrase is a self-evident definition. 3) Between what the article describes as stereotypes "type one" and "type two", the current article boils down to "a preacher's child is either a self-rghteous ass or rebelling against his/her parents". Sounds like every teenager in theworld. 4) I can find no other examples of articles about specific stereotypes. What I do find, however, is a very good article at stereotype with a list of concise entries about common stereotypical characters. Merge and redirect. Rossami (talk) 21:12, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1)Being an orphan is not a reason to delete a page. 2)The fact that something has a self-evident definition is not a reason to delete a page. Global warming has a self-evident definition. 3)Irrelevant. PK's are recognized as a group both by themselves and by others. 4) Hick, Boffin, Faggot, Tom boy, Yuppie, Slacker, Redneck, Chick flick. I'm sure there are more, if one actually looks.

• Keep. Widely-recognized social group. Wile E. Heresiarch 22:02, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, there is a useful article lurking here, I added a cleanup tag. Wyss 22:22, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep! It's a real term, a real sub-group, and why are there two cleanup tags? hfool 23:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. The article already has the (necessary) cleanup tag. The subject matter is important and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. [[User:GRider|GRider\^talk]] 00:01, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Not worth cleaning up. Edeans 00:03, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, cleanup and trust organic expansion. More cultural references are Dusty Springfield's 1960s classic Son of a Preacher Man, and the entire premise of the 1990s- U.S. prime time TV series 7th Heaven. Samaritan 00:05, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep DJ Clayworth 03:35, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep phrase appears self evident, but article provides additional facts. Cleanup and expand. Slike 03:44, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Keep. Dan100 10:47, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

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.