Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welfare trap


 * 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   keep. Courcelles 20:56, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Welfare trap

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Lack of citations and tone issues CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * keep. As you may see from google, it is a well-known concept. The article may be easily cut to a reasonable stub. Lorem Ip (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:07, 22 July 2011 (UTC).
 * P.S. It took me 4 minutes to expand the article with new info from a book. Google is the best friend of a wikipedian. I encourage you all to add one ref each and we have a great aricle. Lorem Ip (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Nominator has not provided a deletion rationale: poor referencing and tone can both be corrected through normal editing. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:20, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But will it be corrected if no one makes it known? Slapping up maintenance tags does nothing. I just know that the instant this AFD closes, the article's gonna stagnate, and 4 years later it will be no better off than it first was. If you're gonna say it can be fixed, PROVE IT or GTFO. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:43, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * TPH, you are way too pessymistic. The article content is reasonable; otherwise the first thing I would have done I'd decimated it. Per WP:V, if things are not doubted, you don't have to put refs right away. I have already added a ref, by the way. There is nothing horrible in the article to be outright deleted. Yes, wikipedia lack workforce in many areas, but the solution is NOT to delete what is not maintained. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:30, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a WP:NOEFFORT argument. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * And yours is a WP:SEP. I say we're even. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 22:15, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * SEP is an issue, but no one has provided any reason to delete this article, which generally results in keeps or even speedy keeps. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:18, 22 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. OK. I am done with fixing the article to a decent state. Sadly, it seems that TPH was right: nobody cares. Lorem Ip (talk) 23:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - Notable social policy concept. I'm not 100% sure this is the correct academic phrase for the concept, but it works. Obviously this is a potential magnet for POV commentary, but that's neither here nor there in an AfD debate. Per a comment above: be advised that Articles for Deletion is not the Article Improvement Workshop. Articles come here and either live or die based upon notability standards and past practice; voting keep in no way requires one to contribute content to the challenged article in question. Indeed, it can be argued that too much stuff hauled to AfD with insufficient reasoning steals editor time away from content creation elsewhere. Carrite (talk) 04:58, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — --Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2011 (UTC)


 * delete. Any real American can tell you that those in poverty deserve it. Any attempts at evoking sympathy are just "commie liberal" extortion schemes aimed at stealing money from the government and hard working taxpayers. This is a blatant attempt at subverting wikipedia to install a left wing bias. --Dumpstercake (talk) 01:59, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just found this article organically from a Google search when I wanted to check if the terminology I was using on a blog was correct.  The article is brief but accurate and informative; it could probably use some expansion, but there's a terrible reason to delete something useful. &mdash; Brent Dax 00:35, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep-the Google results speak for themselves. Definitely not a made-up neologism. Puchiko (Talk-email) 10:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. Any well-read person has heard of this phrase, and any of our core readership who may be less than well-read would like to read this article.  The large number of possible sources online shows the notability of the phrase.  Its long chain of evidence indicates that it is not a neologism.  Newbie Dumpstercake's argument appears to be either illogical or a snark. Bearian (talk) 19:03, 26 July 2011 (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.