Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poseur

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 delete. (I don't think deleting links or redirects to this article is necessary, since it is likely that a new version of this article will be created at some point.) Mindmatrix 00:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poseur

This is a long, silly, and juvenile rant and probably cannot be anything else. Strip it of POV and you have a one sentence description of the term. Move to wiktionary, perhaps. --Tothebarricades 11:52, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this word is already on Wiktionary. Movementarian 14:43, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. dicdef at best. --Daveb 15:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A dicdef expanded with a load of POV. u p p l a n d 18:46, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. stupid article that would be impossible to copyedit or clean up due to the lack of any actual information. way too long and ridiculous for such a simple term. get rid of it. Jbenkato05 09:08, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. In youth culture, posers are frequently talked about. It's not a high-brow subject but it's probably worthy of an article given what other articles Wikipedia keeps (e.g. high schools). Cedars 07:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

We keep some crap therefore we should keep all crap, is a poor axiom to apply to the VFD process. And we don't need an encyclopedia of all topics talked about in youth culture, lest we become a glorified Urban Dictionary. --Tothebarricades 08:20, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

On the second point, Wikipedia does give a different spin to the topic compared to Urban Dictionary. On the first point, it's nevertheless the axiom I am choosing to use. To be honest, whether or not this article is deleted, I believe a Wikipedia article on posers will exist in a year's time. Cedars 15:00, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I believe so as well. And I also think we should have one. But maybe it is best to start over. Punkmorten 15:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. I agree with Cedars - it's encyclopedic. The article is quite repetitive at times though - this aspect could use improvement. --logixoul 21:38, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep as this term is a cultural phenom, not just a term. The article should be tagged with NPOV tag too and cleanedup. 15:03, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm with Tothebarricades. This article is absurd, and, beyond the initial definition, is not informative in the least. It is also incredibly poorly written, making it a chore to read. Maclaine Diemer 16:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A pain for the eye, and also looks like original research. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 14:50, 6 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.