Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (3rd nomination)
Why does it matter so much that they originate from Strauss? For each source, it still goes through a different editorial process. We have the NYTimes, ReganBooks, and the editorial boards of articles in the media. According to , "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative ''in relation to the subject at hand''." I can understand that many of us |don't like Strauss because of his egregious self-promotion, but Strauss' marketing is really a red herring in this discussion that doesn't impact his citeability. Neil Strauss is trustworthy and authoritative source in relation to the subject at hand: the term "average frustrated chump" (though his work may not be trustworthy in relation to other subjects). At least, that's what the New York Times and ReganBooks thought, and I'm inclined to go with them
— User:SecondSight, 03:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:RS||WP:IDONTLIKEIT (Wikipedia:Reliable sources)