Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (2nd 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 transwiki or merge proposals can be discussed by interested editors on the article talk page.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 02:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Average frustrated chump
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Delete: Primarily a definition of a neologism: cannot be made encyclopedic, belongs in a dictionary at best. Entry cannot be made NPOV because usage of the word is confined to pickup guides and supporters of the "pickup community". What little non-definitional information is included in the article is not verifiable for the same reason. Entry may not be notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia -- it is specialized jargon which is not used in conventional speech.Auspex1729 (talk) 17:50, 24 April 2008 (UTC) *Delete following the above rationale, or redirect to seduction community.-Wafulz (talk) 23:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   —Aleta  Sing  22:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep or merge not all articles have to be named after phrases of "conventional speech". I doubt the organization of this supposed "pickup community" or "seduction community", and many of us know that such people tend to be jerks, and that this is just how they talk about "friends" behind their backs. But given that we accept the existence of seduction community and their journal of note alt.seduction.fast (what Romeo uses UseNet, and in this day & age??), it would seem to exist in the asserted context. Potatoswatter (talk) 23:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * We're not arguing about existence. We're saying it's an esoteric neologism almost entirely backed up by primary sources.-Wafulz (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Google News shows 31 uses, and Google has about 14000 exclusive of Wikipedia and its mirrors. Seems to describe why nice guys finish last, and to satisfy WP:N based on multiple substantial coverage in independent and reliable sources such as the New York Times, Guardian Unlimited, San Francisco Chronicle, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, & Atlanta Journal Constitution. Edison (talk) 00:14, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect, transwiki. It's got some mileage behind it, but the article is still just going to be Strauss' description of the word.-Wafulz (talk) 01:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. Just for a comparison, Stephen Colbert's "wikiality" got a small merge and redirect.-Wafulz (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki. Article as it stands is just the phrase and examples of its usage. Google News refs listed above are not about the word, but mention it as examples of neologic language used by certain groups. 14days (talk) 21:18, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison. I am the main author of the article. I voted to delete in the last AFD, because I was unsatisfied with the quality of the article and was having conflicts with other users maintaining it. However, in light of its large number of appearances in Google News that Edison points out, the term has clearly gained a lot of mainstream popularity recently. There are reliable sources on it, so it cannot be excluded on the basis of WP:NEO. Contrary to the nom, it is simply not true that "usage of the word is confined to pickup guides and supporters of the "pickup community." See this article in the New York Sun which finds the term useful for describing Steve Carrell's role in the 40-year-old Virgin: To borrow some terminology from VH-1's smarmy reality series 'The Pick-Up Artist," Mr. Carell embodies an Average Frustrated Chump who transforms himself into an unlikely babe magnet through the magic powers of emotional revelation. While there isn't enough justification to delete the article, it is certainly in need of improvement. (I might support merging it into Seduction Community, except that the latter article is already very long and getting longer.) --SecondSight (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2008 (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.