Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry White Male

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 of the debate was KEEP. -- Jonel | Speak 01:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Angry White Male

Delete - The information here is not verifiable. There're some 61,300 hits for "Angry White Male" on Google, but there doesn't seem to be a consistent definition throughout. In the best case, the article is original research, in which it should still be deleted. Aucaman^Talk 22:16, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

• Changing my vote to Keep the article (per Chick Bowen below). The provided source seems good enough. Aucaman^Talk 21:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete perhaps the author was thinking of Stupid White Men? Unless good sources emerge for this concept, this article seems like original research. --W.marsh 23:05, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - the basis for this article was the content of AWM, which should have been a TLA disambig page. I created Angry White Male for this reason. If the concept of the angry white male has fallen away, I suppose that is a good thing, but I doubt that it is so. -Acjelen 02:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unverifiable, for a start. Stifle 11:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand. The so-called Angry White Male is one of the personifications of groups of American voters, just like the Soccer Mom and the NASCAR dad. The Angry White Male supposedly was a major factor in the 1994 congressional elections. -- Mwalcoff 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• You cannot just write your personal opinions or analysis into Wikipedia. It would original research. Aucaman^Talk 18:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Neither I nor the creator of the article invented the concept of the "Angry white male." It was used in a lot of media in the mid-90s. See, for example, the June 4, 1995 New York Times article "Affirmative Action: The Race to Win Over The Angry White Male." -- Mwalcoff 22:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

• You have to be able to provide sources; otherwise it's original research. I subject of the article seems overly broad. I have no problem keeping the article if it's properly sourced and narrowed down. Aucaman^Talk 02:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

*Delete, original research, unverifiable. Chick Bowen 02:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Never mind, see below.

• Keep, at least one major newsmagazine used a variation of this to describe the 1994 Congressional situation, and it seems to be a very common search term (see also "Angry white men", which gets even more hits on Google). Crotalus horridus (TALK • CONTRIBS) 02:10, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand per mwalcoff. Calwatch 04:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Change vote to keep and move to Angry white male. I found a citation, which I've added. Chick Bowen 04:20, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologism.  Grue  14:36, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and expand - appears to tie in with men's rights and fathers' rights movement. -- Paul foord 11:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: interesting--Hraefen 00:15, 30 January 2006 (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.