Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angry white male (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 keep. JForget 00:56, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Angry white male

Article is clearly racist and the term AWM is derogatory much in the same way another term used to describe a certain minority is.

Note: The nominator is a single-purpose account with no other edits. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:15, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (will shortly be changed to speedy keep when I get home and add a couple of easily found sources). The current version is sub par, but "Angry White Male" is clearly a concept that has been covered in multiple reliable sources, and POV vios are reason to clean up, not delete. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The entry clearly labels this term a stereotype, so it's a bit odd to call it racist. (please note you are missing step three of the AfD, as well as some of the usual header information). Hairhorn (talk) 12:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. But even if it were racist the content of an article being racist is a reason to change it, but not to delete the whole thing. What's relevant is notability, which is easy to establish by glancing through the results of a quick Google Books search. Olaf Davis (talk) 20:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Everything the article says is true. Some people just don't like having it pointed out. P.S. I'm a white male. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you angry? You should know ACME is an EOE joint. Drmies (talk) 02:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A notable stereotype. Joe Chill (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs work, sure its a pejoritive slur but we have other established articles that are no different, and consensus has been to keep them since even though they may be used by racists etc. they are notable by their widespread recognizeable usage. Article should be expanded to identify where the term comes from, that it is a pejoritive, and if there is a common non pejoritive usage (i.e. slang).Fuzbaby (talk) 01:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of US-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 00:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It doesn't matter whether it is offensive because Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:12, 2 August 2009 (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.