Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Snob

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 05:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Snob
My major problem with this article is that (1) it's a dicdef, and (2) it's way POV. It would be difficult to write this article from an NPOV perspective.

Furthermore, note that this is the traditional meaning of "snob" (a class ascendant) and out-of-tune with the most common American usage, which means "unpleasant, arrogant privileged person" and makes no claim as to class ascendancy. Paris Hilton is probably "snobby", by the Amer. def, in her behavior, but she's not a class ascendant (if anything in that regard, she's straining the ropes that hold her). EventHorizon talk 20:13, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is a perfectly fine article; certainly way more than a dictdef. If you feel that it's POV, then feel free to apply the appropriate template. Fix what is bad; don't delete what is good. The article could do with some expansion, but that's true for the majority of our 450,000 articles. GeorgeStepanek\talk  20:45, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. A well-recognized category of social behavior, well explicated in structural rather than judgmental terms, and a hub of apposite linkings needs no serious defense. Compare Elite, Bohemian, Dandy and Philistinism. An insufficiently populist POV might be the secret issue&mdash; to anyone whose idea of an NPOV definition is "unpleasant, arrogant privileged person" (!). Traces of wit might also raise anxiety among advocates of a wit-free Wikipedia, perhaps. --Wetman 21:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Merge the encylopedic content with social class, add the other definition of the word to "snob" and move them both to wiktionary. Kappa 22:43, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is not a dicdef by any means, and it is not too POV. Yes it can most definately be improved, but it certainly should not be deleted. Certainly there should be an article on this topic, and the current article should form the basis for this rather than be deleted out of hand. Please remember that there are more uses for a term than those used in American English. Rje 02:11, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. There's quite a bit more here than can be written in most dicdefs. --Idont Havaname 03:09, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep and tag as necessary. Samaritan 05:54, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep good little article. Capitalistroadster 09:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly not a dicdef, what are people thinking, are they looking at the same article I am? Better look at the history... Looks like it was fine to me when nominated. There's no prohibition on articles containing a definition, the only issue is with articles that are merely a definition and have no obvious potential for further expansion. Perfectly little article as it stands, I don't see any glaring POV problems, other than being focussed on Thackeray and his era. Certainly capable of considerable further expansion. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:49, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see nothing prohibiting this article from maintaining NPOV.  We have many many subjects more controversial than snobbery here on Wikipedia.  GRider\talk 17:32, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.