Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trustafarian (2nd 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. BJ Talk 19:37, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Trustafarian
AfDs for this article: 
 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article was already deleted at Articles for deletion/Trustafarian and that deletion was endorsed at Deletion review/Recently concluded (2006 September). says it's not eligible for speedy deletion as a recreated deleted article, as a non-admin I couldn't really tell before I tagged it. At any rate, it was deleted the first time around for the same reason I'm asking it be deleted now... it's a dictionary definition that can't be expanded into a proper encyclopedia article... all you can really do is define it and tack on trivia. It's a term most of us in English speaking have heard of, but so are a lot of terms excluded due to the principle that we are not a dictionary. I'm not really sure why we need a second AFD to decide what consensus has already established twice, but here we are. Note that there are sources, but again, sources alone don't make it not a dictionary definition. Rividian (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Still just a dicdef (and IMO one that's past its peak popular usage at that). Impossible to see how an article of necessary standard could ever be wrung out of it. Plutonium27 (talk) 01:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Plutonium. You said it Dad (talk) 01:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I declined the speedy, as the article was quite different, but I have no opinion one way or another on the merits of deleting it here . DGG (talk) 02:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as a WP:DICDEF with intermittent pejorative usage and little to define it (e.g. do they all have dreadlocks? or do they just wear alpaca hats?). In other words there isn't exactly a clear trustafarian subculture. At least beatniks and hippies often copped to the term and tried making it their own. Finally, I'd prefer a redirect to an appropriate article on trust fund babies as a phenomenon, but we don't really have one better than trust law and a bunch of more-specific subarticles. --Dhartung | Talk 03:42, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge As Dhartung says, there should be an article about people who live off a trust fund. This article seems a good a start as any and can be moved as and when we decide upon a better title.  For an extensive discussion of relevant tax/legal issues please see this House of Lords debate. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Why do people living off trust funds deserve an article any more than people living off lottery winnings or their wages at shoe factories or what have you? People get their money in different ways and sometimes there are stereotypes about people when lumped together that way. I don't really think it makes for a notable topic. --Rividian (talk) 12:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no-one has coined a word for people who win the lottery and then pretend to be something else. "Trustafarian" does not apply to everyone who lives off a trust fund, but only the subset who live a certain way. This is recognised cultural phenomenon, and should be documented appropriately. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's still a dicdef, and probably couldn't be anything more. FatherJack92 (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The very fact that a word has been coined for those who live off trust funds yet affect the trapping of a different - and often more bohemian/less overtly wealthy - lifestyle makes it notable. Google "Nathan Barley" and "Trustafarian" for a good illustration of application. Nick Cooper (talk) 16:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * How does the fact that a TV character embodies some of the stereotypes of a term mean that we can expand the article on that term beyond a dictionary definition? At best it representes a sentence of trivia. There are lots of terms that have been coined for sorts of people... but until proven otherwise they're just terms, and better suited to a dictionary. And Wikipedia has a sister project that is a Dictionary... not everything we've ever heard of must be an encyclopedia article. --Rividian (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  23:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Google News Archives has mentions going back to the late 1990s, Google Books has a large number of mentions, but no one seems to consider this anything more than another word for "trust fund baby", and I can't find a source that describes the phenomenon (there's the movie Born Rich), but we have an article on that. Wictionary already has it. When someone can find sources, it can be recreated. Noroton (talk) 01:45, 22 July 2008 (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.