Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump

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 no consensus. While there are 4 delete !votes to 2 keep !votes, two of the delete votes are from the primary editors of the page, whose only reason for deletion is that they can't agree. The main points for deletion are WP:NEO, which doesn't have consensus, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary, which doesn't apply to the article. Mango juice^talk 14:11, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

Neologism. Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 05:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm the creator of this entry, but what I originally wrote was ripped down and replaced by what is essentially a dictionary entry linked to questionable sources. And Wikipedia is not a dictionary. That said, the term is not a neologism. It's been around for several years. Yakuman 05:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I got to this article, it was a big pile of original research and POV violations, with poor or nonexistent sources (like quoting non-notable people on non-notable dating forums). Even worse, some parts of it were lifted by User:Yakuman from the Nice guy syndrome article which was deleted for good reason. See the warning by the admin Gwernol on the discussion page. I knew it would be deleted as soon as more people saw it in that state, so I tried to save it by being bold with a rewrite. My rewrite was at best a work in progress, but it eliminated at least the original research problem, and it wasn't just a dictionary definition because it included discussion of the concept. Yakuman took exception to my rewrite, and has started re-adding his original research and crappy sources back in, preferring edit war instead of discussion (see talk). Since I was already borderline on keeping the page for reasons of WP:NEO, I think it's best to delete for now. --SecondSight 06:43, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This has to rate as easily one of the most common terms in the seduction community, and hence certainly is one that should be included here. Mathmo 14:39, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:23, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep though it would be a lot more useful if Nice Guy Syndrome were around too. Jordanmills 14:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SecondSight. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:15, 20 September 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.