Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (4th nomination)

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. It appears that consensus is that average frustrated chump should remain a blue link. Discussions concerning merging can and should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Average frustrated chump[edit]

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

I submit this article for AfD for two reasons. First, it seems to perfectly fit WP:NEO. Second, the majority of the article is WP:OR and based on a singular source. Based on these two reasons I feel this article is not fit for an encyclopedia. Basket of Puppies 04:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep First of all, WP:NEO does not prohibit articles on neologisms; it merely states that they often aren't notable enough for an article of their own: "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, and this is sometimes but not always the case." This is such a neologism; it has entered the popular culture and can be found in many, many reliable sources (just glancing at the Google News and Google Books search results). The article as it stands is not WP:OR, either; it cites multiple reliable sources, and while Strauss's book is the main reference, it is far from the only one. (Newspaper sources include The New York Times and The New York Sun.) If anything, the article has improved since the last AfD (where the consensus was to keep). A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important term in the seduction community, and its presence here is appropriate. Tangurena (talk) 05:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- Quantumobserver (talk) 05:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Reply I kindly submit to ~~Quantumobserver~~ Tangurena that all articles on Wikipedia are required to pass notability in order to be kept. I realize this is important for the Seduction Community, but that does not translate into passing the threshold for an article in an encyclopedia. Basket of Puppies 05:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BoP, first of all Tangurena is the editor to whom you should be replying; Quantumobserver was merely deletion-sorting. And second of all, are you asserting that this does not meet the general notability guideline? You didn't mention that in your nomination. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silly, silly me! I haven't considered if this group passes WP:N, but I was pointing out to Tangurena that their rationale isn't one that an closing admin is likely to accept as it doesn't make an argument based on policy. Basket of Puppies 21:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see what you meant. I agree that he/she made a WP:LOCALFAME-type argument. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've been considerably reluctant to keep articles on this general topic, but this seems adequately documented and important. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge to Nice guy. The lead makes it plain that AFC is just another way of referring to the "nice guy" syndrome. Fences&Windows 03:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Usenet, one of the sources for the article, is not really a RS, even if it is a moderated list. A moderator is not the same as an editor. It's more of a WP:SPS see also the essay point on WP:USENET. Per WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term." I don't think the Times and Sun meet that criteria. Also "the seminal (peacock?) Cliff's List definition"? Is that site a RS? It doesn't look like one. Шизомби (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A term one guy has come up, with no coverage by other reliable sources about that term. The comment above is important. The only person who discusses this phrase is Strauss. Quantpole (talk) 12:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sorry, but that's patently untrue. Strauss didn't coin the phrase; Ross Jeffries did. It says so in the article's lead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that claim has no source, so I ignored it. Quantpole (talk) 11:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with Nice guy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dark link (talk • contribs)
Keep - I just read a Craigslist post that used the terms "PUA" and "AFC" and I came to WP to find out what they meant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.59.251 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2010 (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.