This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was kept: 4 keep votes + 1 "hesitant to delete" vs. 7 clear delete votes and 1 delete vote by an anon. No consensus in favour of deletion. - SimonP 20:32, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
Found as a "see also" from poverty. 889 hits in a google search. Probable neologism, and in my opinion its presence as a link detracts from the impact of the poverty article.
I'm putting this up on VfD because I doubt its notability, though I'm sure others will chastize me for lacking the initiative to improve, redirect, merge, or transwikify the article. C'est la vie. --Ardonik.talk() 02:44, Sep 11, 2004 (UTC)
- This phenomenon certainly exists, unsure how legit the term might be. Tentative keep. Rhymeless 04:28, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete: I think this term is coming from a political POV. As a political label, it seems to live only among the far right. As a misunderstood term for something like "ghetto ho," it has more spread. I would far rather see this mentioned in an article on poverty, "In the United States, laissez-faire capitalists now argue that relieving poverty by the government is inherently wrong because all agencies that do so become poverty pimps." Geogre 12:55, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- No, please don't improve, redirect, merge, or transwikify, do delete. Title is inherently POV and abusive, just like recently deleted Rightard and Republinazi. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (Do the folks who want to create a template for autovoting "Keep" on everything on VfD actually look at the kind of stuff that comes through?) Bishonen 17:31, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Inherently POV. — Gwalla | Talk 23:26, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- I've heard the term used, in this sense, quite some time ago. I'm not sure what I want to do with it, but I'm hesitant to delete outright. This material may be more relevant as example of rightwing criticism of certain groups than elsewise. It would be much more helpful if someone actually traced the origin of the term, etc. As it is, it's sort of a POV dicdef. -- Jmabel
- Keep. I agree the title is POV, but this term is in use, enough to justify an article about it. If the article is kept, it should be rewritten somewhat, along the lines of "Poverty pimp is a derogatory label used to convey the accusation that...." etc. If the presence of the link in the article on poverty is inappropriate, delete the link. JamesMLane 04:33, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep !!!!! Jesse Jackson is often called this term - it may be a slang insult, but it's defniately in the current American vernacular. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404
]] 07:35, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC) - Delete. This is nothing but Republican propaganda. -- Chaz
- Delete - junk terminology with no staying power - Tεxτurε 20:07, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary of slang. -- Cyrius|✎ 04:49, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Keep --- even if the current language is vaguely POV, the concept can be described in NPOV language. jdb 15:48, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- In that case, I assume you're on it, jdb. The people here who think the concept is inherently propaganda will be interested to see your work, so please let us know when to go look. Bishonen 16:59, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
- Delete. Unencyclopedic, and a disparaging slang term. BCorr|Брайен 17:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.