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. This should not have been recreated. Articles that have been deleted should be taken to deletion review. - Ta bu shi da yu 14:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tough guy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Delete - previously deleted at AFD so technically eligible for speedy deletion, but that was a while ago so I thought it should come here. Certainly if an admin feels it's still speediable as a repost then I have no issue with that. The article is an extended dictionary definition. The examples of real-life "tough guys" and actors who play tough guys and fictional tough guys all constitute original research and without that material it's a dictionary definition stub. Otto4711 15:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'd support speedy as well. WP:OR and WP:POV. --Evb-wiki 16:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Don't delete speedily; wait for this AfD to finish. CRGreathouse (t | c) 16:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom as well. An interesting idea, but just another list. Into The Fray ^T/C 17:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to masculinity or machismo unless referenced. This was likely started to be a target for wikilinks in movie articles, and the movie character type is well-known and probably a cinch to reference. --Dhartung | Talk 18:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article actually started as a vanity entry as the author included himself. Not much of that original article survives - the concept is popular and so the article attracts attention. I've spent time keeping it clean of vanity entries but haven't bothered to expand the prose - not being sufficiently interested in the anthropology /sociology aspects. Colonel Warden 09:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - The definition of "tough guy" is too broad and open to debate for this ever to be a suitable article.--Danaman5 18:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep a good idea, but not adequately handled. the concept is notable. DGG (talk) 04:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep if properly sourced, Redirect to masculinity if not. Besides I wasn't in the list :)--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine, change my vote to "add User:Lenticel to the list, then promptly delete". ;) CRGreathouse (t | c) 14:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Wikipedia has plenty of similar articles on stereotypes: geek, nerd, poindexter, boffin. I suppose that this article suffers because real tough guys aren't the sort to polish their wikipedia image. Anyway, I'm not seeing any original research but the current article is too much list and not enough prose. Just needs work. Colonel Warden 07:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:WAX is not a particularly persuasive argument. I note that Poindexter is about a fictional character, not a cultural stereotype. Otto4711 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, as the term is incorporated into the name of a movie and multiple companies. I also just found oodles of article titles in academic journals that I will properly format after this post, see the references in a few minutes. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the effort to contribute - a commendably positive attitude. Colonel Warden 06:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :) I'm always happy to help look for references to rescue and improve articles. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete- how did this get to a 2nd ADF? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JJJ999 (talk • contribs) 02:29, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too broad and ill-defined to attract anything besides original research. Recury 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Comletely biaised and unencyclopedic. If it were fixed to be encyclopedic and NPOV, it would become only a dictionary definition. Canjth 01:57, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Some hyperbole above. To make the article more respectable, all that is needed is some work. For example, I google for a couple of minutes and find The 25 Toughest Guys in America. This was established by a panel of 100 for a journal in this field. Use of such sources can easily make the article notable and objective. The only problem is the abundance of sources and the work required to present them all comprehensively. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Colonel Warden 06:40, 2 October 2007 (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.