Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (5th 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   redirect to The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists. The content is available under the redirect for anyone caring to merge. Stifle (talk) 10:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Wow, I didn't even realize this had been nominated so many times. Anyway, my reasons are the same as every other nominating editor's: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary; "everyone uses this phrase" is not an argument for notability; fame in the "seduction community" does not translate to notability; passing mentions in articles on other things do not satisfy the notability guidelines. This term simply has not received the necessary coverage, and the article is, as it apparently always has been, a mass of original research. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to The Game: Penetrating the Secret Society of Pickup Artists - No evidence of notability independent of the book "The Game". Four out of five sources are to this book, and the fifth mentions it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 05:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - Concur with the nom; while the "seduction community" itself is notable, that notability does not transfer to various related topics. They can be merged into the main article if appropriate. Kuguar03 (talk) 05:06, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per nominator. --Bobbyd2011 (talk) 07:38, 14 February 2011 (UTC) confirmed sockpuppet --  &oelig; &trade; 15:50, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and Salt per nom. Peridon (talk) 13:11, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge/Redirect. There appears to be some sourced content here that can still be salvaged. Merge whatever's relevant and redirect. Or just redirect if noone is willing to perform the merge. -- &oelig; &trade; 15:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to the book, per above. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:01, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:19, 15 February 2011 (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.