Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nice guy syndrome (second 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 delete. Mailer Diablo 13:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice guy syndrome
There is no such thing as "Nice guy syndrome." It isn't listed in the DSM-IVR. The article as it is is nothing but but one man's theories on certain men's dating woes and a compare and contrast with other questionable theories about dating. The talk page and the archived talk page for this article repeatedly call for deletion. Some people are pretty outraged that this kind of article is allowed to exist on Wikipedia. It has been nominated recently for deletion and it hasn't gotten any better. It's time to pull the plug on this one. Erik the Rude 07:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This article was also nominated two months ago: see Articles for deletion/Nice guy syndrome.
 * It was also nominated in May 2004: Talk:Nice_guy_syndrome/Delete.

--Lambiam Talk 12:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOR and the reasoning of Catamorphism, this is nothing more than "pseudoscience masquerading as a legitimate concept (the low quality of the sources cited should be enough of a clue there.) Having an article on this implies that "nice guy syndrome" is an objectively recognizable concept like "cancer" or "schizophrenia". It's not. The idea that such a "syndrome" exists is a hypothesis floated in a few popular books, and we shouldn't legitimize it; at best, it could be mentioned in an article on folk psychological theories or on the sociology of heterosexual relationships in the US." --Hetar 07:38, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hetar. -- H·G (words/works) 07:47, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hetar. RandyWang ( raves/rants ) 07:55, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete hella OR. Danny Lilithborne 09:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Hetar. --SJK 09:23, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete almost completely unsourced and similarly almost all original research and outright speculation. I've been trying to tag all the unsourced material. If we went through and removed it we'd be left with maybe two sentences in the article. Despite OR, NPOV, and citation needed tags, the article remains unimproved and should be removed. Gwernol 13:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete fails WP:NOR and fails to assert any verification in medical or psychiatry journals (only source is from a US university that is not defining any legitimacy as a medical condition)  hoopydink  Conas tá tú? 18:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, per all the above. Sure, this phenomenon happens.  So do plenty of other phenomena in the dating world, such as reluctance to date single parents, or anger at friends for setting up a bad blind date, or high school sweethearts reuniting after twenty years.  All those things happen, and none of them warrants a Wikipedia article.  Furthermore, as much as I'm sure - no, actually, I know - that sometimes a woman will turn down a man with some permutation of "You're a really nice guy and all, but...", there's no way of knowing whether or not that is really the reason for her rejection.  Being turned down / turning someone down is a sensitive and emotionally charged situation, and what people say may not be the best indicator of how they actually feel.  Isn't it quite possible that the woman in question is trying to be "nice" and feels more comfortable telling her suitor that he's "too nice," rather than, "I think you're immature," or "You're okay, I guess, but I hate all your friends" or "I just don't find you the least bit attractive"?  Basically, you're left with a lot of speculation and anecdotal evidence, as Gwernol pointed out, and none of that adds up to much of an article.  - Tapir Terrific 21:57, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete for the fourth time. This article violates at least three core Wikipedia policies, and has violated them for years.  My last three deletion votes sum up my view on this article, and it has only deteriorated in each successive deletion attempt.  --Quintin3265 01:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Unencyclopedic folk-psychology cruft. All folk-psychology topics should be AfDed. —optikos 03:33, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unencyclopedic folk-psychology cruft. -- GWO
 * Delete However, I disagree strongly with the nom; there is such a thing as the "Nice guy syndrome", whether it's documented or not. Until we can build an article from sources, delete the article we do have. There's too much original research in the present one to save it. Vadder 12:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - the keep votes from the original AFD were weak, and the article has not been improved. My original comments still stand. Catamorphism 14:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * opion I am a taiwanese, and in Taiwan ,Nice guy syndrome(好人文化) is a popular word in internet culture, TV shows, and even the speaking among Taiwanese adolescents.If wikipedia is the resourse of the knoeledge of humam     being, I suggest that the Nice guy syndrome should be recorded.--Alltonight 01:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, but disagree with nom per Vadder. A "nice guy" article should be written from scratch that describes the archetype of "nice guys" in popular culture.  That article can briefly mention Glover's book and claims of a "nice guy syndrome."  Nice guy syndrome should eventually redirect to that page. --SecondSight 10:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This article needs definite clean up, but should not be deleted. Where I live, Southern California, it is a common phrase used to describe nice, or love-shy males who can never find a relationship.  The fact that this is not a clinically defined term is irrelevant as it is prevalent in popular culture.  Again, this article should be cleaned up, not deleted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jkfp2004 (talk • contribs).


 * 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.