Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion/Nice guy syndrome

This page is an archive of the discussion surrounding the proposed deletion of the page entitled Nice guy syndrome.

This page is kept as an historic record.

The result of the debate was to keep the article and revise.

This page contains a great deal of unfounded, POV speculation. There are no references and I doubt if any can be found. I can't think of a good place to redirect this to, and I doubt if we can ever have a NPOV article under this title. UninvitedCompany 18:34, 7 May 2004 (UTC) Keep. Could use some cleanup, but keep. --Starx 00:24, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, with reservations. It's a phenomenon that people claim to be true fairly often, though not necessarily limited exclusively to the context of dating (otherwise "nice guys finish last" would have a whole different meaning, nudge nudge, wink wink).  If kept, it should be moved to nice guy or something similarly neutral, and have the sillier stuff stripped out.  "Nice guy syndrome" makes it sound like an accepted pseudo-technical term. -Sean 18:40, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Puerile and conjectural, but essentially harmless. Alcarillo 19:03, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, cleanup. A widely noticed phenomenon.  FWIW, Google grabs more than 7,000 hits on the whole phrase.  Smerdis of Tlön 19:16, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but significantly revise. Rosemary Amey 19:29, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. silsor 20:05, May 7, 2004 (UTC)
 * Neutral. Seems like it's well-researched, but it's a bit POV and should have bibliographical references to back the theory up.  An interesting read, and much better than what might have been, namely some lame, one-sentence attempt to define a cliche. - Lucky 6.9 23:19, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, and keep the name. Echo Lucky 6.9's comments. SWAdair | Talk  06:11, 8 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but add scientific psychological studies if available. Robert Happelberg 20:09, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The phenomenon is very real, and very important. However, this is not a very scientific name or way to describe it.  This article needs to be deleted, and similar content integrated into relevant sociology and psychology articles. &mdash;Chameleon 21:45, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, wikipedia is not for original research, which is what this is. Maximus Rex 21:49, 9 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete: unsubstantiated speculation. Wile E. Heresiarch 16:01, 10 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, but stripped of pseudo-scientific speculation and maybe refirected to more appropriate name. - Nilmerg 09:07, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep after substantive revisions to remove non-NPOV. Maybe include some external links to reputed studies or investigations to prove it isn't original 'research'. -- Tlotoxl 09:20, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, NPOV, give sources for statements. Andris 17:45, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Fascinating, although, like others have said, specific references would be extremely useful in affirming this article's credibility. -- Seth Ilys 06:34, 12 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. There is very little encyclopedic info there. The useful information can be incorporated into courtship, seduction, alpha male, Sexual attraction, spousal abuse, etc. Quadell 15:36, May 12, 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is a concept, whether real or not, which people do talk about. POV could use some work, but by clarifying that it's a street-level theory, not scientific, and possibly culturally biased, its merit as an article should be obvious. -- Crag 15:51, 2004 May 12 (UTC)
 * Keep, change to NPOV Burgundavia 07:22, May 13, 2004 (UTC)
 * Needs major cleanup. I've always perceived complaints about "nice guy syndrome" to be ultimately rooted in the notion that a man is somehow entitled to receive romantic attention from women, and if they don't, it means there's something wrong with the women. Needless to say, I don't have a whole lot of sympathy for that worldview. It's amazingly sexist and, IMO, utterly wrongheaded. Bearcat 02:11, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Digressing a little bit... what's sexist about getting irritated that girls (generally of a certain age group) fall for selfish, useless guys? Unless you think that "nice guys" are a bunch of fat, acne-ridden nerds who don't deserve any female attention (thereby making the expectation of such based on a sense of entitlement), I don't see what this "nice-guy syndrome" has to do with sexism.  My own experience is that the "nice guy syndrome" only really applies up to the age of around 20/21, and is of course not universally applicable.  But then again, I'm a Charisma Man, so what do I know.  -- Tlotoxl
 * It is sexist to assume that if a woman is not interested in a man, it's because there's something wrong with her. And it is sexist to assume that "girls" fall for selfish useless guys any more than boys do. Rosemary Amey 17:33, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Who said that "girls" (don't get hung up on that for heaven's sake -- I'm talking about kids who aren't even old enough to drink in the US, after all!) -- who said that girls are the only ones to fall for selfish members of the opposite sex? I don't think the "syndrome" assumes that if a woman is not interested in a man it's because there's something wrong with her, either -- it merely notes a TREND in (imo younger) women (or men) to fall for people who are selfish and can't/won't return one's affections.  What's sexist about that? -- Tlotoxl 17:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The fact that there isn't a similar article describing "nice girl syndrome" is awfully telling. The fact is that as social discussion around these matters goes, when women reject the nice guys, we get a social phenomenon deemed worthy of labelling and discussion, and when men reject the nice girls, we get a minor footnote to the phenomenon of women rejecting nice guys. In other words, women have a higher burden of responsibility for protecting men's egos than men have for protecting women's. That's what's sexist about it. Bearcat 18:56, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * If it's awfully telling of anything, it's telling of the fact that apparently the female population isn't bitter enough about this aspect of their teenage years to feel compelled to complain about them on Wikipedia. If the "nice girl syndrome" doesn't have its own article, it's because nobody bothered to write it. Given that the "nice-guy syndrome" article is pretty much first-person primary "research" (/whining) at this point, you could hardly expect the same unhappy males to create a "nice girl syndrome" article. -- Tlotoxl 19:09, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * The reason nobody ever bothered to write "nice girl syndrome" is that nobody ever thought it a phenomenon inherently worthy of note. That's the telling detail I'm pointing out: when a woman rejects a man, there has to be some kind of "blame the woman" theory to explain it, but when a man rejects a woman, well, that's just the nature of the dating game, right? Bearcat 22:42, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Either that point ought to be addressed in the article or the article should be folded into a larger "what we know about the complexity of human interaction and sexuality" WikiProject, or both. My own experience is that the "Nice Girl Syndrome" does not exist, or at least not to any statistically significant degree.  The selection of mates is still primarily a female role, socially and biologically.  As long as "Nice Girls" have visible signs of fertility, men of all kinds will be available to them whether the women realize it or not.  Men do not enjoy this selection.  This isn't sexism, it's biology and sociology.  Still, this article could be improved dramatically by changing its tone. -- Crag 19:10, 2004 May 14 (UTC)
 * You have failed to understand the phenomenon. Try being less PC and actually reading it. —Chameleon 08:48, 14 May 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, t'ain't about being PC, and t'ain't about not having read the article. Sorry to disillusion you. Bearcat 16:14, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, my deletion of Tlotoxl's post was entirely accidental. I knew there was an edit conflict and my attempt to merge my post with the other didn't work. Sorry about that. -- Crag 21:31, 2004 May 14 (UTC)


 * Keep, but make NPOV. An interesting article, very interesting. DO'Neil 08:33, 16 May 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate up to the point of deletion and is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the new method of assessing voting, should be placed on other relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.