Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tough love

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 keep. Y.Ichiro (会話|+|投稿記録|メール) 03:35, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tough love

Dictionary definition, contested PROD. Brian G. Crawford 00:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wiktionary. — Kimchi.sg | Talk 01:25, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP: this concept is central to the treatment of substance abuse and other disorders. There is potentially a lot of meat here -- the history of tough love, noted experts in favor, noted experts against, controversy, etc....just like other psychiatric / substance abuse treatment strategies (eg Twelve-step program, although this is not 100% analogous). Yes, this is a stub. But isn't the purpose of the stub tag to identify potentially good articles that are still in their infancy? This is clearly not simply a dictionary definition. Quepasahombre 02:05, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is potential to expand this article. Books have been written on it and so forth. Capitalistroadster 02:20, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki or weak keep if expanded --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Notability as to treatment and verification can be found, needs some tough love to make it work :) TKE 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This entry needs to be shown some of itself. Bucketsofg 03:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remove from the Wiki. I don't see this working on Wiktionary. Royboy crashfan 06:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. The concept of "tough love" is a political one that has major implications in the field of social care (see this book, for instance). Agreed the article as it stands isn't enough, but mark for clean-up and expansion - and keep.Vizjim 13:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wiktionary, unless expanded and cleanup then keep. --Ter e nc e Ong 10:32, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary. it starts with "Tough love is an expression used when" and it's a Vocabulary stub. Clear enough to me. -The preceding signed comment was added by Nazgjunk (talk • contrib) 10:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite/expand - definitely an article-worthy concept. What's there at the moment can also go to Wiktionary, but there's an encyclopaedic article in there somewhere. Proto||type 10:52, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand - Tough Love is large concept of behavior, about which there is much to be said. Expand the article, because it's not enough as it is. Hanako 12:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tranwiki An obvious candidate Celcius 13:15, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepLoom91 13:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Quepasahombre. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:24, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if expanded. This is an important enough concept, I've had to deal with it in translation work (and it was a chore to translate!). Can be more than a dictdef. ProhibitOnions 16:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/expand, has potential far beyond dicdef.Bjones 17:44, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, concept could be fleshed out quite a bit more - people write books on the topic. Worth keeping as a stub until someone gets around to updating. Kuru ^talk 00:35, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep = as above. For great justice. 01:02, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. --badlydrawnjeff (WP:MEME?) 02:46, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki The seepage of items to Wikipedia that should be in Wiktionary is getting ridiculous! Fishhead64 06:15, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bucketsofg. There's nothing here that would be lost should someone create a relevant article in the future. Gene Nygaard 13:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: this argument could be used to justify deleting all stubs. the counter argument is that having a stub in place helps to encourage further improvement. Quepasahombre 20:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per Quepasahombre. Simon Dodd 03:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Very well-known concept. Should never have been prodded and the nom makes very little case for deletion. -- JJay 20:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki, dictionary definition, not really encylopedic. Radagast83 19:34, 4 April 2006 (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.