Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Poverty pimp (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Killiondude (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Poverty pimp

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

Dictionary definition, orphan. See prior AfD, weirdly closed (from which we learn that Bishonen has been here for goddam ever. E Eng 03:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AfD standards were different in 2004. They were also wayyyy too optimistic back then that we'd find appropriate sourcing for this term (and it was definitely a bad close in retrospect). It was almost AfD'ed again in 2007 before the nomination was taken back, but it's time to go forward with this. It's a lecture/rant in article/dicdef form, and I cut just three sources that were one-sided (TheBlaze and two conservative think-tank publications); we're down to a 404'ed The Hill article, a Salon opinion piece, and a local news story from KCBS-TV. Far from enough from a good article with good sourcing. Nate • (chatter) 03:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I noticed that too; Bishonen is definitely a long-runner! Nate • (chatter) 03:21, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've heard Bishonen's actually a robot. E Eng 03:30, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- as per WP:NOT#DICTIONARY, whether the term is widely used or not doesn't matter, this is not urban dictionary. The 2004 AfD closure should have been challenged, the closing admin basically stated the number of votes for each position (and there were clearly more for delete, even discounting the "anon vote") and then said then said there was no consensus for delete.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep more than a dicdef with examples of usage. The term has 612 results in Google News, and 1,500 results in Google books, and 96 results in Google Scholar. More usage examples can be added from these sources. --RAN (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's what dictionaries have: usage examples. E Eng 07:26, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The number of hits it gets on Google does not address WP:NOT#DICTIONARY (which is why I believe this was nominated for deletion).--Rusf10 (talk) 06:49, 29 January 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.