Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Male answer syndrome
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Male answer syndrome
Neologism. Some of the websites I found while checking this one had me laughing and nodding my head in agreement (this one for instance). The concept is dead-on, but at under 600 hits, almost entirely from blogs, it's just a neologism. SWAdair | Talk 08:46, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No vote yet, mostly bcz i think i've heard it used on Car Talk, which has a pretty good leverage for spreading cogent expressions. But even as edited, it is also 1) still PoV 2) orginal research and 3) wrong (C'mon, dump the "manly hunter" crap, this is about the sexual component of evolutionary selection, where the guy who does a good job of faking command of the situation bags the babe. Part of the whole "Look at the big brain on Brad" gambit, where being able to compose poetry or solve or pose riddles demonstrates general health and vitality, as surely as a peacock's tail does.), and if not deleted it needs to go to WP:CU. --Jerzy(t) 11:10, 2004 Oct 9 (UTC)
- Question: Is there a better, i.e. scientific and non-feminist word? Syndrome seems a bit harsh. Dunc_Harris|☺ 11:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- No vote -- but if it's a neologism, it's one that's been in use for fifteen years. No question it's a bit perjorative, but we're here to catalogue, not censor. --Metahacker 14:02, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Not a neologism IMO, and a valid topic so it should either be an article, or a redir if a better name exists. Close to the border maybe but a clear keep is my call. Andrewa 18:21, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I don't know if it should be kept or deleted, but I do know that if it's kept, it should be sent to cleanup, and then then sent back here to VfD if not improved. - RedWordSmith 20:44, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: The observation is common, but the usage is not stable yet. There will be a winner among the neologisms, but there hasn't been one yet. Let the dust settle. BTW, my girlfriend of long ago used to refer to the "Y-linked helpfulness gene," which causes any male to try to help a woman, even if they haven't a clue and the woman does. A tissue paper kite is ripped up by a thorn bush in the park, and yet every man has to go try to "fix" it. Anyway, a true observation, but not a notable or widespread term yet. Geogre 00:47, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Neologism for a pop-psychology concept that is not supported by research. Rossami 03:58, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. There is a proper term, but I don't know what it is. --Viriditas 04:14, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep -- or something -- are you giving any thought to the point of view of the person who hears it and looks it up? This is NOT science and it is not supposed to be. It is an explanatino of a pseudo-scientific term that IS part of our language and culture, and BTW Rossami's change was NOT minor, having removed two thirds of the material. ;Bear 06:20, 2004 Oct 10 (UTC)
- Google suggests its a deliberate humor piece originally attributed to Sam Hurt. You can find his book here. In other words, it's a gag. It should be merged and redirected to an entry for cartoonist Sam Hurt, but no such entry exists. Should it be deleted and moved to BJAODN? My answer is yes. --Viriditas 07:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Q. Why does it take 1.5 billion sperm to fertilize one ovum?
- A. Because not one of them is willing to stop and ask for directions.
- What do you mean, "part of our language and culture"?
- It's called grasping at straws. I hereby throw in the towel and I hope everybody got a chuckle out of it. ;Bear 01:32, 2004 Oct 12 (UTC)
- Consider that most of the Google returns (at least theso I checked) have to explain what they mean -- this implies that they don't expect their audience to have heard the term before. BJAODN and delete. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 21:35, 2004 Oct 11 (UTC)
- Delete It's a not very funny joke phrase, like "retail therapy", based upon pop psychology. --Jll 12:54, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- I gather you're saying that "retail therepay" is funnier. That's rather POV, eh? I do like that one, and have never heard it before. Do we need anarticle on that? How about a list? ;Bear 15:39, 2004 Oct 13 (UTC)
- No - I was just using "Retail therapy" as an example of a similar phrase. I had heard that one before but not this one. I don't think either deserve an article! --Jll 12:32, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- Keep, I've heard the phrase from more than one source. —siroχo 00:17, Oct 15, 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - SimonP 19:09, Oct 16, 2004 (UTC)
It's been deleted now, the link has gone red. So why is that not explicitly mentioned here? ;Bear 00:18, 2004 Oct 17 (UTC)
