Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neckbeard (slang)


 * 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. Both WP:NOTURBANDICT (cited by most as a reason for deletion) and WP:WORDISSUBJECT (cited as a reason to keep) are actually part of the same policy, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Just saying WP:NOTURBANDICT is thus not sufficient reason for deletion because it's a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a policy that also allows keeping such subjects.

Whether this is indeed a word that is sufficiently notable as an encyclopedic subject is another question, one that has not been answered definitely in this discussion.  So Why  12:40, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Neckbeard (slang)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This belongs in something like Urban Dictionary- not Wikipedia. The links mostly point to pop culture opinion pieces. Fails GNG. Recommend deleting and redirecting back to beard. Jip Orlando (talk) 21:02, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The book ref was actually pretty decent, but still WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. Alsee (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This is not a dictionary entry and the topic is notable, being covered as an substantial chapter in this book. We have articles for other distinctive styles of beard: chinstrap; designer stubble;  Shenandoah; soul patch; &c and this forms part of that set. Andrew D. (talk) 19:59, 12 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment – Below is the full chapter listed in the !vote above. I was able to access pages 43 to 63. North America1000 23:15, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes: Film, TV, and Internet Stereotypes. ABC-CLIO. pp. 43 –.


 * Keep Covered by many publications and I think it would do some editors good to familiarize themselves with the term. BlaccCrab (talk) 11:15, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete - Wikipedia is WP:NOTURBANDICTIONARY. This is a classic example of a dictionary definition, with lots of unencyclopedic cutesy examples tossed in for good measure. Blech. Carrite (talk) 06:02, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep, I believe there is a general consensus the term is notable and has been covered in reliable sources, thus passing GNG. There is also a second policy called WP:WORDISSUBJECT which states:

In some cases, a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. As with any subject, articles on words must contain encyclopedic information. That is, such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term. While published dictionaries may be useful sources for lexical information on a term, the presence of a term in a dictionary does not by itself establish notability. Examples of Wikipedia articles on words and phrases include Macedonia (terminology), thou, orange (word), and no worries.

In other cases, a word or phrase is still prima facie (at first blush) about a topic other than the word or phrase itself but the word or phrase is a "lens" or concept through which the topic or closely related set of topics are grouped or seen. When this occurs, the article often focuses on the "lens" and may not be the main coverage of the topics which are viewed through it. World music, Political correctness, Homosexual agenda, Lake Michigan-Huron and Truthiness illustrate this.


 * Additional examples include Cuckservative, which has been deemed notable and repeatedly survived AfD. A culture of people have formed around this term, this article needs massive expansion not deletion. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:43, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Valoem (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.


 * That's not a valid rationale, per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There also does not seem to be a true keep consensus for Cuckservative, despite your implication.  The AfD outcomes were "Trainwreck" (a particularly bad no consensus), "No consensus", "No consensus", and "Speedy close" (due to "no new rationale [since the last no consensus !vote]"). - GretLomborg (talk) 22:23, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep That the term was covered in an entire chapter of the ABC-CLIO book (titled "The worse you look the smarter they think you are: The Neckbeard") means it passes Notability and does not fail Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cunard (talk) 07:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a textbook case of an article that fails WP:NOTURBANDICT and should be deleted. Discussions of notability are not relevant due the aforementioned WP:NOT issue. We already cover the facial hair style at Beard. - GretLomborg (talk) 22:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: as says, Wikipedia isn't Urban Dictionary.  The term itself has not received significant, in-depth coverage and has only been used in major publications as a passing reference to instances of Internet harassment.  For the benefit of the closing admin, while the keep !votes are numerous, they are generally shallow and are only superficially valid.  I respect  as an editor, however his !vote is based upon other stuff existing and these other articles cover the beard style in-depth whereas the article we are discussing is based upon its Internet-lore status.  Two other keeps are merely "it's covered in publications" but such reliable publications are not cited.  Although  does mention a whole chapter of a book being dedicated to the Internet phenomenon, I can find few other reliable sources that give meaningful coverage that would create content useful for an encyclopedia.  Perhaps a section in Beard would be more appropriate but I am of the opinion that the keep rationales are more numerous but weaker.    Dr Strauss   talk   12:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I strongly disagree the deletion side has stronger arguments. The argument WP:WORDISSUBJECT has valid weight. The subject has been covered in a ABC-CLIO book. "ABC-CLIO, LLC is a publishing company for academic reference works and periodicals primarily on topics such as history and social sciences for educational and public library settings. ABC-CLIO provides service to fifteen different online databases which contain over one million online textbooks."


 * The book Cyberbullies, Cyberactivists, Cyberpredators: Film, TV, and Internet by Lauren Rosewarne, dedicates a full chapter pp 43 - 69 (25 pages) describing the rise of the term and the subculture which it defines.


 * This is not case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but a comparison of subjects which share WP:WORDISSUBJECT. The ABC-CLIO covers a vast array of additional information which can be included. Other sources include Kill All Normies: Online Culture Wars From 4Chan And Tumblr To Trump And The and The Rumble. This term is used to define a subculture, it has little to do with beards, beard would be an invalid redirect.


 * WP:WORDISSUBJECT overrides WP:NOTURBANDICT as it's goal is to allow exceptions defining them as a word or phrase itself may be an encyclopedic subject. In these cases, the word or phrase in and of itself passes Wikipedia's notability criteria as the subject of verifiable coverage by reliable sources. The application of WP:NOTURBANDICT is to show popular terms which appear on Urban Dictionary, but have not been defined by reliable sources. When a term becomes cultural significant it is covered in reliable sources as Neckbeard has. Your argument of NOTURBANDICT suggests that any term on Urban Dictionary cannot have an article on Wikipedia. That is a misapplication of GNG and NOTURBANDICT. Valoem   talk   contrib  15:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Valoem (talk • contribs)  is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD.


 * Weak Delete - So, importantly, the subject we're talking about is the slang term per the parenthetical, distinguishing it from the actual style of beard (covered at Beard). The chapter in Cyberbullies... is what pushes me from delete to weak delete, but I'd want to see more than that in order to keep. I see a little bit of coverage with e.g. Fibre Culture Journal, Study Breaks, and some standard coverage when added to Oxford Dictionary (e.g. LA Times, Esquire) but none go very in-depth into the slang term. Willing to reconsider if others find more in-depth coverage in reliable sources specifically covering the slang meaning of neckbeard (not, say, grooming tips). &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 20:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment I see little connection (besides the use of the term "neckbeard") between the present article and the the ABC-CLIO chapter the keep arguments rely so heavily on. That source is a (rather meandering) rumination on some stereotypes of internet users, and doesn't really have any strong connection to the term "neckbeard", it just uses the term a few times.  The present article is not really about that stereotype anyway, but about a specific slang term used to refer to it.  It very much fails WP:NOTURBANDICT: for reference, here's the actual Urban Dictionary entry for "neckbeard": . The present article has the same style and content.  The term itself has not gotten the kind of in-depth attention to pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT, since mere usage doesn't pass that bar. - GretLomborg (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. There's already too much here to fold into the section about the hairstyle on the Beard page, and after perusing the sources listed, I would argue that the article needs to be expanded rather than deleted. There are sources which treat the term (as it applies to people, not a facial hair style) in sufficient depth. The fact that Urban Dictionary has an entry on the same subject is irrelevant, WP:WORDISSUBJECT does trump the other page, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not what's at issue. If the article does fail this AfD nomination, I would argue it's almost certainly merely a matter of time until even more sources of the calibre of the book listed are published to bolster the sources already cited. — GrammarFascist  contribs talk 23:31, 19 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. the effective guidelines are not what is written, but how we apply them. I could write an almost equally reasonable argument for deleting or keeping this article, depending upon which of the conflicting guidelines in Wikipedia I chose to emphasise. The way forward from this is to remember 0  there is a basic principle: WP is an encyclopedia. The material here is appropriate for an encyclopedia, giving information about not just the use of the word, but the overall context.  DGG ( talk ) 01:01, 20 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Beard. In theory we could have a decent article on the beard style like we do with other beard styles, but this article is not about the style, it's basically a rambling dicdef about how neckbeard wearers are dorks.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC).
 * , has zero content creation and has been and editor who has been editing since May 2017 participating solely in AfD and back page maintenance, the user has as far as I see a 100% deletion record please be aware of this editor's edit history. This editor has also been tagging "is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD", which is rarely used in AfDs. Valoem   talk   contrib  05:03, 20 August 2017 (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.