Talk:Wife guy

Revisions needed for clarity
If nothing else, this page requires fairly substantial revisions in order to serve as a coherent entry in defining what exactly a "wife guy" is. Most egregiously, a "Wife Guy" is defined as "...a man whose fame is owed to the content he posts about his wife" in the first sentence. The examples then list five men wherein this doesn't apply. Is Will Smith considered famous because of "the content he posts about his wife"? Or because of this? Are any of the four other individuals truly "famous because of the content they post about their wife"? Most of them barely have their wives mentioned in their pages.

Ultimately in my personal, subjective opinion, this is a term at best very vaguely and extremely broadly defined, largely by a small handful of fluff pieces which frequently reference each-other - and it's difficult to see how the article should best disseminate various journalists approximations what the term means. If each given citation is considered notable enough, a "Wife guy" can be defined as a person who either posts about their wife, has their wife assist in promoting their work, has their wife involved in an important event in their life, a person who "Expects to be congratulated for having a wife", or a person who is very supportive of their wife.

Clearly the first sentence in the article is not a sufficient or even fitting definition of the term if all citations are considered notable definitions. Solutions include listing all of the above potential definitions - or even simply leading in by noting that the phrase is poorly/broadly defined.

Additionally I think the article would very much benefit from some type of usage statistics of the phrase, but how these should be attained is beyond me.

Thanks. Sorry to be a downer about a fun page, but hey.

A MINOTAUR (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I’m glad you want to improve the article. These are the same concerns you raised in AFD and clearly did not succeed. I don’t really see a reason to take that out in the talk page, again. No, we’re not going to collect usage statistics, that’s not our job, we’re not original researchers.
 * not everything wikipedia documents is going to be clearly and statistically defined. Some things are nebulous, and the record should reflect that. Some articles can only describe what people are saying about something rather than synthesizing material (which is against the rules anyway) ForksForks (talk) 04:18, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability?
While there appear to be a few articles discussing the phenomenon, are there really enough to justify an article yet? Neologisms are tricky to pin down notability in my experience, because what counts as significant usage can be quite subjective, so I don’t want to jump the gun and put a notability tag on a somewhat promising stub before getting other opinions. That being said, this isn’t a formal RfC or anything, I was just curious what the general consensus for neologisms and internet slang notability is.

I agree completely and just made a similar post in the talk page. It should be removed Joeletaylor (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm just not 'online' enough to get it, but this subject ('a man who posts content online about his wife') seems to me a bit too generic and empty to really justify an article. Remarkably though, it seems to have enough sources that it arguably does pass the notability guideline... Robofish (talk) 20:56, 6 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I also agree completely. This is, at best, a niche internet meme only seen by a very specific group on Twitter. This may be okay if it had some degree of potential citations but as it is, it seems largely/entirely made up of 'personal contributions' by users trying to get in on the joke. A MINOTAUR (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Trying to get in on the joke, as you say, has been watched pretty carefully, resulting in a page protection and a number of reversions. This isn’t a case where vandalism or bad edits are going unchecked. The article as it is today is pretty well sourced and reads like any other article. ForksForks (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't exist?
This seems like a bit, an entry made as a joke, and is a subject fit for Know Your Meme or Urban Dictionary, not Wikipedia. It's essentially a definition of internet slang, if this makes the cut then "thot," "large adult son," simp, 30-50 feral hogs, the whole lot of ephemeral "extremely online" bullshit does too Joeletaylor (talk) 05:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

I think it's fine. There's a grey area between becoming urban dictionary and having articles about things that may seem obscure to someone who's not "extremely online", as you say. Wikipedia has millions of stub articles of things nobody cares about. This happens to be a stub article on something that people do find interesting, funny, and yes, notable, contrary to the millions of articles on obscure films, diseases, proteins, athletes, races, etc that we insist on keeping around. ForksForks (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, nah, this article is both niche and garbage. Definitely more an article for Urban Dictionary, not Wiki. I definitely support deletion of this page.(talk)(118.211.95.201 (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2022 (UTC))

I'd normally agree, but with the coverage from The New York Times and others, it feels like a notable online cultural moment thats more then a knowyourmeme type thing. bepvte (talk) 05:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Twitter fame
The article is currently trending on Twitter. Eisfbnore (会話) 00:55, 28 April 2020 (UTC)