Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry white male (3rd 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   no consensus, and clearly not a consensus to delete. Note that the result here is somewhat different than the clear keep consensus from the previous AFD discussions, in that there was significant disagreement here, but I cannot really see a consensus for mergin either since several people have argued that the concept can be expanded. Given that the term has been used in a number of political works, I think a future consensus for merging is a more likely prospect than a future consensus for deletion, and I ask editors to consider that before proposing a fourth AFD. Sjakkalle (Check!)  11:46, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Angry white male

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

AfDs for this article: 

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. John Asfukzenski (talk) 22:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This nomination was created by a user with a questionable edit history. Just a point of note. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The term describes about 90 percent of the people in the AfD Forum. Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Exactly how does that comment contribute to a meaningful and productive discussion? ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 14:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Meaningful and productive discussion" only applies to meaningful and productive articles. The history of this one suggests that it keeps getting changed by white guys who are easily offended.  The latest version is that it's a "stereotype which typifies a reactionary, white male, especially in the context of U.S. politics and opposition to policies of affirmative action which favor other groups in society such as women or blacks."  Half of the article is about  Michael Douglas's character in the movie Falling Down.   When there's nothing to say, put it in wiktionary. Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep Stubs often look like dicdefs, but this one has potential for encyclopedic expansion. The angry white male is a supposed political demographic (like soccer mom) that's received substantial discussion by the media and political pundits.  Angry white males were the big thing for commentators on the 1994 midterm election just like soccer moms were the big thing in 1996.  Many Google Scholar and Google Books hits discussing both the phenomenon itself and the media's framing of it. --Chris Johnson (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep: Its more than a dictionary definition, the concept has been covered by reliable sources in depth:, , ,,, etc.--Milowent (talk) 05:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - this article wasn't very neutral, so I restored a more NPOV version, but it does seem to be a sufficiently notable concept, as shown by the references above. Robofish (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You guys are completely missing the point. this is not the place for dictionary entries. Reliable sources does not matter for this. John Asfukzenski (talk) 04:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a dictionary definition, it is a stub-class article. There is a significant difference. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

*Keep - Non-dictionary stub-class article with a potential for expansion shall someone wish to undertake the task of doing so. It is a notable legitimate concept. Also, keep per Chris Johnson and User:Milowent's explanations. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ② talk 14:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC) It's an embellished dictionary definition, that never has graduated from stub-class. . Mandsford (talk) 16:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Merge to  Stereotypes of white people per others since it's a logical search term.  Mandsford (talk) 16:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I agree this isn't place for these type of entries. The Red Peacock (talk) 20:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The goal here is to create an encyclopedia. Our sibling project Wiktionary has the goal of creating a dictionary. Showtime2009 (talk) 06:14, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge per Mandsford. There may be some encyclopedic value here, but I think it would work just as well as part of Stereotypes of white people. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - The article may be little more than a dicdef now, but it has potential for more. I'd say that the article should be expanded, not deleted. --  At am a  頭 20:09, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge - Changing my opinion to merge per my previous points, however, Mandsford's point of merger with Stereotypes of white people seems much more appropriate. ⒺⓋⒾ ⓁⒼⓄ ⒽⒶⓃ ②  talk 03:59, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - it's a major demographic and a significant voting bloc, particularly in the U.S. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  04:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I would like to see this expanded.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:03, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge seems logical. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete This isn't the place for dictionary entries. 172.163.150.240 (talk) 20:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete/Merge WP is not a dictionary. Reywas92 Talk  23:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 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.