Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Culture of entitlement

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. No prejudice against recreation as a redirect to one of the suggested targets. Jenks24 (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Culture of entitlement[edit]

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

This is a textbook neologism. It is entirely unreferenced opinion, the only cite being a single non-WP:RS opinion piece. It is very poorly written, but even if rewritten, would likely never be able to meet Wikipedia sourcing standards. The article seems to exist simply to propagate use of the term and to push a single point of view. Loonymonkey (talk) 00:55, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination rationale. This is a short essay based on a phrase, not an article about a topic. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into entitlement. "Culture of entitlement" is a widely discussed topic in political circles, but the lack of references in this article, and the discussion of the sociological effects of entitlement in the current entitlement article suggests that these two articles can be merged. NJ Wine (talk) 02:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- As the term is invariably used by conservative critics to challenge the basic idea of the modern welfare state, Criticisms of welfare#Libertarian and conservative criticisms is a much better merge target. --Lambiam 15:04, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to criticisms of welfare or entitlement. It is a commonly-used phrase (as is "entitlement society") but it seems only to exist as a term of abuse. The current article is a bit essayistic. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:19, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as an original essay about a neologism. That the first "expert" quoted at length on this topic is a candidate for President of the United States indicates the likely intent of this piece as 2012 campaign fooliganism. Carrite (talk) 17:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Merge manually if there's anything worth saving. --BDD (talk) 18:32, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced political POV rather than actual term used in scholarly literature. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:45, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others. Lacks significant coverage in RS, runs afoul of WP:NEO & WP:NOR.--JayJasper (talk) 16:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete It is, in the main, very well written (once you take away those PoV quotes-eg Romney's sweeping aside of the commonsense knowledge that the recipients of entitlement benefit from entitlement, with the Big Lie/"Huh? I don't understand that, so it must be true" that only the government benefits). But good luck finding sources to back up the assertions. The quotes are very biased indeed, and it is not 'balanced' to show two opposing biases. The mainstream view will be somewhere in between. A selective Merge of the material to Entitlement would also be acceptable. Anarchangel (talk) 23:37, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--See War on women for a precedent of keeping precisely this sort of article.William Jockusch (talk) 22:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think Carrite has it right when he/she says its an original essay. Doesn't appear in any scholarly literature or even widespread in newspapers. Not a term of art either. At worst, this could be included in an election article about issues up for debate, but as a term onto itself? Probably not. -- Lord Roem (talk) 02:56, 29 May 2012 (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.