Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assistant

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 delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:14, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Assistant

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

Dictionary definition, no hope of expansion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 01:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, specific type of assistants, such as Personal assistant have their own article, this general descriptor is not needed. Seaphoto^Talk 02:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:10, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- - Delete. Fundamentally a dictionary definition and cannot become encyclopedic in such a broad form. Would support it as a disambiguation page if a suitable number of sub-types of assistants have their own articles, but not in this format. Zachlipton (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary. All that is said is that an assistant is someone who helps (assists) another person. On the other hand Right hand man, which seems to have been merged into this article, might be able to stand alone since it contains some background. Jaque Hammer (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move Assistant (disambiguation) into its place. There is potentially an article about right hand man, but it's not this one which is just unsourced speculation on it's etymology that, if kept, needs to be checked to see it's not original research. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 20 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes man should redirect to Sycophancy per Colonel Warden below. Thryduulf (talk) 13:35, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/split. There are three different topics here and they are all sufficiently common that they should not be red links. The current content is mostly about the right-hand man and so should go to that title. The title assistant should be used for assistant (disambiguation) while yes man should go to sycophancy. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:41, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and move to right-hand man, an article about the phrase can be more than a dictionary definition. Agree with Colonel Warden about retargeting assistant and other page titles that redirect to it. Peter E. James (talk) 00:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In order to avoid redlinks these topics should be kept.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the existing disambig page to this title per Thryduulf. While an article may be possible at Right hand man, this collection of speculation and OR isn't it. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 19:16, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply a WP:DICTDEF. Also the 'Right hand man' section appears to be off-topic, as a 'right hand man' is generally a deputy for the principal (independent) rather than an assistant to the principal (non-independent). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 10:44, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^confess 20:08, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:DICTDEF and turn this page into a disambig per the above comments. I had a good laugh at the bible passages used as references in this article. SnottyWong ^confess 20:08, 25 January 2011 (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.