Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice guy


 * 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 Speedy Keep per WP:SK and WP:SNOW. Warden (talk) 12:28, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice guy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unencyclopedic content, lack of valid sources, not significant/notable, idiosyncratic non-topic Antiterra (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2013 (UTC) — Antiterra (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 06:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Is this a joke? Did you look at the reflist before declaring the sources invalid and the topic non-notable? –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 08:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, did you? Reference #2, which attempts to fundamentally define the term, links to a page which is effectively an ad for a book and system by a licensed therapist with a PhD. #3 is about physical attractiveness. #4 is a comment on a discussion forum #5 is on "masculine males" vs. "feminine males," drawing this into the Nice Guy archetype is dubious and original research. #8 is an incidental mention of the term "nice guy" in an article on gender difference. #9 does not contain the quote given in the article, and the actual content contradicts the supposed quote. #10 is an article about meta-research just randomly grasping at straws about deciding which articles are about nice guys or not. References #16-#18 and 27 are, in the articles admission, off-topic/orthogonal; they are not useful to the article. #19-#23 and #25,#26 are blogs, good blogs but blogs unsuitable as structural refs for an article, especially when used as evidence for a statement in a move of original research (this was discussed on Talk:Nice_guy a couple years ago.) #24 is a book description of a blog source. #27 is orthogonal, about pleasing people. That leaves 1,6,11,12,13,14 and 15-- a mere seven sources that could be argued as possibly notable and supporting. Three quarters of the reflist is garbage! Even the remainder is also problematic. That is, those seven sources are really about mate selection among heterosexual women, and no more about 'nice guys' than they are about 'bad boys.' It appears that some believe there's an argument for having articles on tropes/archetypes in popular culture, but that content definitely isn't here, despite the footer template. Antiterra (talk) 19:10, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - AGF and all that, but I really can't see the logic behind this nom. It's a concept/term that has been studied in its own right, as well as in relation to other subjects. Beyond that, the article itself houses a number of marginally notable concepts and prevents each from needing its own article. I'm actually wondering if the nominator meant to AFD a different article. Stalwart 111  12:49, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, the above comments suggest the nomination was intentional, so I'll strike my speculation. Though I stand by my keep opinion, I appreciate a more detailed nomination/explaination. I suppose the remaining ("mere") 7 sources are enough, for me, to tick the multiple sources box, even discounting those sources the nominator contends might not be reliable. The rest of the issues highlighted would seem to fall into the WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM category. Stalwart 111  20:41, 1 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep. Topic meets WP:GNG in spades. See the plethora of sources available by searching for the term in google scholar here. Concerns over the content of the article can be addressed through editing. Gobōnobō  + c 21:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep notable, widely discussed pop-psychology concept. No particularly good reason given for deletion.  Andrew Lenahan -  St ar bli nd  23:08, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. I think the article meets the WP:GNG guidelines.--MaGioZal (talk) 00:36, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the article should be kept, and I think Roscelese has made a good case for keeping it. Barnabas2000 (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2013 (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.