Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plain folks


 * 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 defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:10, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Plain folks

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Lying dormant since 2007, this term - while ostensibly portraying a real phenomenon used in politics which I won't deny - only has one source and is worded like a sturdy coined phrase instead of a spurious neologism. If this "fallacy" has a name, it woukd have many and "Plain folks" isn't it. Anyway, it has one source and seems to fail WP:GNG right now. ~Sıgehelmus♗(Tøk) 05:17, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Weak keep I’m gonna say keep only because there are in fact reliable sources on this common phenomenon such as New York Times, Washington Post, CBS, and TIME (as recently as 2016). Article can be expanded and done correctly.Trillfendi (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment If such sources exist, provide link(s) here or add them directly to the article. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  06:32, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I was too lazy to do so initially but here are examples: New York Times, CBS, TIME, for a about most of the decade, specifically in the 2012 election, Obama has been known to do it but I don’t think it was necessarily a plain folks technique in my opinion. Trillfendi (talk) 07:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Come off it, those are all just passing mentions of the phrase, or asserting that a certain person has that attribute. None of them pass muster as in-depth discussion of the concept as required by GNG. SpinningSpark 22:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Redirect to commoner, which is a larger article about the concept meant by this title. The stuff about politicians posing as common folk is covered elsewhere under more accurate titles such as demagogue. Andrew D. (talk) 14:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Excellent idea. Trillfendi (talk) 20:22, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Seconded. sixty nine   • whaddya want? •  22:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Weak keep. Nice topic for Logic. Good for wiki philosophers. But the topic needs to be developed the more.Mgbo120 (talk) 09:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:18, 17 January 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 23:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Propaganda_techniques (anchor needed), which links commoner in the header. It's rather duplicative of that section, and the fallacy is covered at Argument from authority. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:57, 1 February 2019 (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.