Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (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   keep per multiple references in RS.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Small-group jargon, sourced to a single book. At the very best, a dictionary definition, but in reality simply some unnotable in-group jargon being used to prop up a how-to guide. CalendarWatcher (talk) 06:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.   -- VG &#x260E; 14:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak delete. The article is largely based on one source (Neil Strauss) that's closely connected to the topic and stands to gain financially from promoting it. The rest are Usenet quotes. VG &#x260E; 14:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as wp:neo at this time, not in general use, not verified by multiple reliable sources. wp:dicdef may also apply, in the best case.  P HARMBOY   ( moo )  15:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no sources, not in general use, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 00:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I'm the original author of the article. While it's not spectacular, the above characterization of the article seems hasty and demonstrably innaccurate. The article currently has three sources:
 * Strauss, Neil, The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists, ISBN 0-06-055473-8, p. 439
 * (the link was broken, which might explain why this source was unnoticed, but I've fixed it and added a citation template).
 * (the link was broken, which might explain why this source was unnoticed, but I've fixed it and added a citation template).


 * So it's just not true that this article only references one source, Neil Strauss (and I will point out that one of the Strauss sources is a a New York Times article, a high quality source). The term is also used in the New York Sun article linked above. As for the the claim that the term is "not in general use," this is not exactly true, as it is used by a non-member of the seduction community in the New York Sun article (though to be fair, the editors above probably couldn't read it because the link was broken). I also found the term referenced in a political article when I started looking through the 100+ hits on Google News for the term. The other forum and usenet sources are interesting, but not relied upon for the notability of the article. Since this term has multiple reliable sources which also define its meaning, the article passes WP:NEO. I'll be the first to admit that it's not the greatest article, but I don't see how it is deletable. I just don't understand why we are having an AFD on an adequately-sourced article when the article was already kept in a previous AFD; must history repeat itself? --SecondSight (talk) 04:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It's still, really, only one real source: Neil Strauss for the first two, and passing mention in a film review for the third. If Strauss wants to flog his neologism to sell his books, he'll need to do a better job of it to get into Wikipedia. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * you have a major misunderstanding here in believing Neil Strauss came up with the term AFC, it had been in use for years before he ever came across it. Mathmo Talk 10:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * And you have a major misunderstanding yourself: 'assertion' is not the same as 'evidence'. Regardless, whether Strauss stole the neologism or coined it himself is immaterial, the key factor is it being a neologism and all. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * once again you are wrong in the belief that neologism is in itself enough basis to delete an article, for instance jumping the shark is a neologism Mathmo Talk 13:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You have it backwards: a neologism--especially one utterly unsupported by multiple reliable sources--is not in itself eligible for an article. The burden of evidence is upon those attempting to add material to Wikipedia, not the other way around, after all. As for your example, it's a colloquialism, not a neologism, and one in widespread--and well-documented--use in a wide variety of settings, so as a counter-argument it's utterly inapt, even if one ignores this basic logical argument completely. And, finally, I notice that you rather ignored the whole question of evidence for your rather-questionable assertion in the first place. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep, multiple reputable sources. Mathmo Talk 13:13, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * As has already been pointed out, no, neither multiple nor reliable. Certainly not non-trivial outside the self-promoter flogging it. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * more references: The Economist: Lessons of seduction, The Age: Winging it, Rocky Mountain News: PICKUP ARTISTS UNITE, & BBC: Seduction, blog-style. Mathmo Talk 02:58, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A series of passing mentions, most of them seemingly leading back to one Neil Strauss? I'm detecting a bit of a pattern here. And once again, you seem unclear on the meanings of 'non-trivial' and 'multiple'; that is, examining the term itself in some sort of detail and not stemming from the same source. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 03:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * comment as per calenderwatcher, the sourcing is discursive... it's either from strauss, or from sources citing strauss. There are NOT multiple, reliable sources.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Why does it matter so much that they originate from Strauss? For each source, it still goes through a different editorial process. We have the NYTimes, ReganBooks, and the editorial boards of articles in the media. According to WP:RS, "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." I can understand that many of us don't like Strauss because of his egregious self-promotion, but Strauss' marketing is really a red herring in this discussion that doesn't impact his citeability. Neil Strauss is trustworthy and authoritative source in relation to the subject at hand: the term "average frustrated chump" (though his work may not be trustworthy in relation to other subjects). At least, that's what the New York Times and ReganBooks thought, and I'm inclined to go with them. --SecondSight (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete for lack of multiple, reliable, neutral sources. Biruitorul Talk 18:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep or redirect to seduction community. The term did not originate with Strauss, but has been around since at least the late 1990s.  The reason why so many of the cites lead to Strauss's book is because when it came out it was one of the few secondary sources on the topic of the seduction community.  I'm of the opinion that the AFC article is long enough to spin off from the "seduction community" article.  It simply needs to add some primary-source cites to Jeffries and others, and cite some of the many newspaper articles that critiqued the seduction community after the Strauss book came out. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:45, 31 October 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.