Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trailer trash

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. Sandstein 05:54, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer trash

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

Dictionary term, one ref (to a dictionary), and some wiki links to songs, tv shows, and movies. In interest of full disclosure, part of my ethnic background is PWT, so I'm familiar with the topic. Seems of little value to us here, probably be best if this were transwikied. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Familiarity breeds contempt. In fact, the topic is notable; for example, see "Trailer Park Trash": News, Ideology, and Depictions of the American Underclass. and so should be kept for further development per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 22:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I agree that the article is likely to tend towards DICDEF, but there's no reason, in theory, why it should; the concept is notable and has been covered in decent sources. ╟─Treasury Tag►Alþingi─╢ 22:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Warden, this is imperfect, but there's no reason it couldn't be a good article, it just isn't yet. Meelar (talk) 00:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very common phrase, even though mostly a derogatory slur (i think we dont document every minor slur/slang phrase), lots of ghits in books, scholar. it currently looks like a dicdef, but could easily be expanded.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Pejorative terms are magnets for vandals and don't add anything. Stuartyeates (talk) 07:45, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
We don't delete articles just because they're likely to attract vandalism. Otherwise it's bye-bye Barack Obama and Tony Blair f'rinstance. The question is whether or not it meets our notability standard. ╟─Treasury Tag►assemblyman─╢ 14:55, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Google books and scholar searches show sufficient sources to meet notability guideline.--Kubigula (talk) 14:37, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. We have articles on other pejorative terms. This does seem like a waste of effort though when there are so many core articles lacking.TCO (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2011 (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.