Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beta provider

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 speedy delete. Per already many, many excellent arguments below, and nobody except the creator arguing for keep (and not arguing well). Bishonen | talk 14:27, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beta provider

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article based on two sources; treats a fringe theory as fact. One source is an article on a pick-up artist website called "Girls Chase: Get Girls Chasing YOU". The other is a book titled This Black Hole: Anacostia Diaries Continued by Francwa Sims. It's published by a vanity press by quite the eccentric author (see the title page, which identifies the book as: "This Black Hole - The Anacostia Diaries Continues // A Continued Personal Chronicle of the Years Beyond 2000-Plus. Started in the Year of our Lord Two Thousand and Eight Under the Authority of His Excellency, King Barack I (President Barack H. Obama) // May God Save the United States of America and His Excellency, King Donald I (President Donald J. Trump)". The article itself includes such statements as "especially if the woman is under some duress such as being a single mom (perhaps from one night stands with various alphas)". GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep how can anything that has 53,500 Ghits be "fringe theory" not worthy of inclusion? For comparison, "homoflexible" has 54,500 Ghits.Miacek (talk) 21:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was the one who linked you to WP:GHITS in this discussion, I know you know that's not a suitable argument for notability. Even if it were, that wouldn't allow editors to create articles based on unreliable sources. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:13, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- First, the WP:GHITS guideline is much more nuanced than you claim it is; a very high number of Ghits clearly shows a term is widespread. Second, why did you ignore my point on "homoflexibility" and similar articles? The article Bi-curious has "wholly" 3 sources, the only one of which I could access - this [1] has no substance whatsoever as to the question at hand, just mentioning the word "bicurious" once, and the article reads like a dictionary definition, are we gonna delete this one, too? Wouldn't that be bigoted? What about a much wider phenomenon then? Miacek (talk) 22:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - I ignored the homoflexibility point because it's based on GHITs, which again is not useful. As for bicuriosity, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If that is an attempt to accuse me of bigotry, it's not appreciated. GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:43, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - "WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" A real surprise here! My point was exactly the opposite, namely that both conecpts should enjoy coverage as they are legitimate (even though the article I referred to is not in a good shape).Miacek (talk) 22:47, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - Meant to link WP:OTHERSTUFF (not sure why they don't link to the same place). Compare "namely that both conecpts should enjoy coverage as they are legitimate" to the first example of arguments to avoid ("There's an article on x, and this is just as famous as that.") GorillaWarfare (talk) 22:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Fire. Sourced to garbage, per GW.--Jorm (talk) 22:45, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Undeniably a minor meme, I was unable to find reliable sources for this term. A related concept, Beta male (slang), looks like a notable topic, but without reliable sourcing for Beta provider, it looks like it doesn't even warrant a redirect. Might be suitable for Wiktionary. Hence, delete. --Mark viking (talk) 23:12, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was pleasantly surprised Beta male (slang) even exists given all the bias and ignorance I've recently seen on Wikipedia. Maybe merge Beta provider with that article?Miacek (talk) 23:16, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

With these sources? Hell no. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:27, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without merger. Inclusion in Wikipedia requires reliablesources, and it has been a long time since I've seen an article whose references are so far from meeting that standard. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 23:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails reality. No reliable sources found and likely none exist because this is fringe bullshit pushed by a fringe community. Jbh ^Talk 00:36, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination AND per the terrible counterarguments. Not even CLOSE to acceptable. --Calton | Talk 03:08, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which counterargument did you find particularly "terrible"? I will retract it to help my cause.Miacek (talk) 03:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your garbage GHITS argument or your garbage OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument? Your garbage passive-aggressive "Wikipedia is biased against" claim? Your playing the bigotry card? You utter unwillingness to actually address the garbage sources? Boy, how to choose?

There is nothing you can "retract" to help "your cause": this isn't a game where if you choose just the right words you can "win". Washing garbage just gets you cleaner garbage.--Calton | Talk 03:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

How many times do you find it worthwhile to repeat yet the ultimate argument "garbage"? Where did I use OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, when I specifically said I find these articles I mentioned necessary to keep, contrary to want you attribute to me? Miacek (talk) 03:34, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find the article, and the internet to be devoid of any and all reliable sources. ~~GorillaWarfare you were being generous with the ~35K hits.~~ I think the actual number of hits is around 9-10K 9400 to be exact. Even among these there are references which are not about this term like this book that explains it as a firm providing services blah, blah blah. I am also against a merge. Merge requires the article to have some sourcing at least. If the closing admin is feeling generous (and I mean really generous as in forgiving Thanos kind) maybe he can redirect, but I leave that to his discretion. 2Joules (talk) 04:03, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you may have misread—I didn't say anything about 35K hits. GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:05, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

GorillaWarfare I am sorry, when you mentioned that you had pointed him to GHITS, I attributed them to you. I'll strike that now.2Joules (talk) 04:22, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries! GorillaWarfare (talk) 04:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. One non-notable article and occasional use by a small Reddit sub-culture does not make something encyclopedic. ApLundell (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As crap. Somehow straddles the boundary between WP:NEO and WP:FRINGE. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 10:44, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.