Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gofer

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 CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gofer

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

This article reads mostly like a dictionary definition, with a bunch of random trivia added on the end (including various TV shows that happen to have included the term). In 10 years, this is all we have managed to come up with; it suggests to me that this article could never pass WP:GNG. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Esquivalience ^t 01:04, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is an obvious search term for a variety of possible targets including gopher, errand boy, aide de camp, personal assistant. They are all blue links and so should this be too. Deletion is therefore not appropriate and an alternative is preferable per our editing policy. Andrew D. (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, what is the article supposed to discuss so it is more than just a dictionary definition and dumping-ground for trivia? And where would you merge it to? — This, that and the other (talk) 06:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, without prejudice to a future deletion proposal that can only be timely once there is evidence that a adequately focused improvement effort has been made (-- A decade is but a blink of the Wikipedic eye --IMVisionaryO-- , since WP is the (per Asimov, eventually-to-be-long-forgotten?) seed of the Encyclopedia Galactica. --) to discard any truly unhelpful material, find reliable sources, and seek help from experts on e.g. workforce structure who can tell us what formal job titles are likely or unlikely to "hide" the gofers behind them, and what degree of advancement such positions are likely to offer. (Should we believe The Devil Wears Prada is realistic? Is Tess in Working Girl a species of Gofer, and if so, can we document how much reality the film reflects? Does 9 to 5 reflect employees of low status actually being less dispensable than the bosses? Can we establish a list of captains of industry who "started out in the mail room"?) IMO, deletion would be grossly premature at this poingt; the next step should include efforts both to improve what is here and to identify on the talk page what is extraneous and why. The apparent informality of the job description is an unusual barrier to easy research, and that means the article should be presumed well worth the extra effort it may take to do it right, until enuf has been done right to demonstrate deletion-worthiness. A fair chance at improvement can exist only after the underbrush has been cleared away to expose fertile ground.
--Jerzy•t 08:40 & :47, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Keep This is a widely used term but without a blue-link the meaning may be unclear to some people (or dismissed as a typo), the article has over 3000 reads in the last 30 days, so it is serving some purpose. It also has somewhere between 50 and 100 incoming links from the article space, so there is plenty of ammo to improve the article in "What links here". IMHO This is a simple refimprove and quite possibly WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I see no reason to delete this. -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9^Talk 23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Courier. I would have said redirect to Errand boy as it's essentially the same thing, and we don't need two articles on the same thing, but since errand boy redirects there, so should this. --Michig (talk) 10:59, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 21:53, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - seems to be just a dictionary definition, followed by some disconnected trivia about the word defined. SJK (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to courier. It's a valid search term, and maybe could be an article some day, but for now a redirect makes the most sense. Chunky Rice (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well known phenomenon., and merits an articles. There should be a wide range of additional sources. The meaning is not quite the same as " courier". DGG ( talk ) 04:48, 30 November 2015 (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.