Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Good ol' boy


 * 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. DGG is quite right, though--obviously some merging is needed but that can be discussed elsewhere. Chick Bowen 02:49, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Good ol' boy
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Clearly, as of July 26 08, the article is garbage: a bunch of unverified impressions about how someone perceives this term is usually used, complete with "quotes" that don't quote anyone and embarrassingly unverifiable junk like: "Good ol' boys are generally thought to..." and "the term thus has generally a positive connotation..." On the other hand, there is a list of cultural references, most if not all of which are verifiable. Does that make it worth keeping, on the hope the facts can be augmented and that the garbage around the facts might be replaced with some actual content? 89.176.31.200 (talk) 07:34, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * User:89.176.31.200 attempted to nominate this article for deletion. The above are his comments on the article's talk page in support of the deletion nomination. I believe the article should probably be kept but 89.176.31.200 does have some points to be considered. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I think that this phrase, being in such heavy usage, merits an article and is notable. —Atyndall &#91;citation needed&#93; 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I just tried a google search for "good ol' boy" -network and got 200K+ hits. Also, Merriam-Webster online has a definition for it: "a usually white Southerner who conforms to the values, culture, or behavior of his peers". (OED doesn't have it, so it's hard to really verify this definition through attestations.)  But this raises another question: does the term really need an encyclopedia entry, rather than just a dictionary entry?  To put it another way, when all the unverified garbage is removed from the current version of the page, is there anything left besides a definition and a list of notable attestations? 89.176.31.200 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * FYI, I was wrong, OED has it:


 * orig. and chiefly U.S. good old boy n. (also good ol' boy, good ole boy) a white male of the rural southern United States regarded as exemplifying traditional southern values; an uncomplicated, easy-going man; a ‘man's man’ [...] 1948 N. MAILER Naked & Dead (1949) ii. 25 What a bunch of good old boys there were in the platoon. 1965 T. WOLFE in Esquire (Electronic text) Mar., He is a coon hunter, a rich man, an ex-whiskey runner, a good old boy who hard-charges stock cars at 175 mph... He is..the true vision of the New South. 1977 Time 14 Mar. 28/3 White House watchers also think they can glimpse a tad of arrogance showing through the good ole boy pose. 1993 D. GILB Magic of Blood 54 Like any good old boy, he..finds it very hard to refer to non-white people without calling them something. 2004 New Voice of New York 26 May 13 The confederate flag is still being flown, and the good old boys are still hanging around the feed store.
 * 89.176.31.200 (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Notable phrase, but the content of the page is mostly junk and original research. Should perhaps be cleared back to a stub to start again. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 15:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Redirect On further investigation. This should be a redirect to Good old boys.  This article covers the same phrase and is in better condition, all it needs is reference to the pronunciation that drops the 'd'. -- Escape Orbit  (Talk) 16:52, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The articles are duplicative, but consider in which direction the merge & redirect should go on the relevant talk pages. This isn't the place to discuss such editing issues. DGG (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2008* (UTC)
 * Merge and it really doesn't matter which direction, since one will be a redirect to the other. I'd suggest merging into the singular, and letting the plural be the redirect, but I fundamentally don't think it matters. Jclemens (talk) 00:02, 27 July 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.