Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poutrage


 * 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.   A rbitrarily 0   ( talk ) 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Poutrage

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. This subject belongs in wikitionary, if anything. It seems to be a Neologism. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 06:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - yes, even if a neologism/dictionary entry comes with 95 (I mean it) probably-correct citations, it still doesn't belong here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The reason I think Poutrage is an interesting word is how specific its usage is to a well-defined group of people. To authenticate that the usage is so skewed was what led me to provide so many references: it was almost impossible to find other usages. As the term Feminazi is to American conservatives, Poutrage appears to belong to American liberals. A word combining "pout" and "outrage" should result in a word used pejoratively by anyone, but that isn't the case here. This word ties closely into the American liberal narrative depicting conservatives as the Party of No, and to the perception by liberals and progressives that the GOP is engaged in purely obstructionist politics.   I think it says something important about American polarization in politics and confirmation bias that the term is overwhelmingly used by liberals only. I've structured the article a little differently and added to it to emphasize the political ramifications of the word usage. --Gunnora (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2011 (UTC) — Gunnora (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Delete No more than a dicdef. Interestingly, neither "pout" nor "outrage" have Wikipedia articles, for the very simple reason that they are also dicdefs. If I were to come across this word and wanted to know what it meant, I would look in a dictionary and that would be sufficient. The fact that the word seems to be used predominantly by a select group is not special - the same is true of so many words - and does not justify its inclusion. Emeraude (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:55, 24 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:DICDEF of a neologism per Emeraude. This is something for the Urban Dictionary or for Wiktionary, but it is of no value here. There is clearly  something  wrong  with  the need to  add almost 100 references to  such  a short article. Nobody (other than an admin trying to get to the bottom  of this) is ever going  to  check so many refs, and it  looks very  obviously to  any  mature reader like an attempt by  the creator to  provide a weak logic for notability.  This kind of editing  is clearly  disruptive to  prove a point and is not  in  line with  acceptable editor intentions. For all  we know, all  these refs may  simply  document  the sum  total  of the number of times the word has ever been used, and that's not  even enough  to  justify  its inclusion  in  a quality  dictionary. The article itself is poutrage as is scraping  the search  engine barrel and listing  every  result for it, most  of which appear to  be blogs or forums..Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk)
 * 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.