Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Average frustrated chump (4th nomination)
First of all,  does not prohibit articles on neologisms; it merely states that they often aren't notable enough for an article of their own: "Some neologisms can be in frequent use, and it may be possible to pull together many facts about a particular term and show evidence of its usage on the Internet or even in larger society. It may be natural, then, to feel that Wikipedia should have a page devoted to this new term, and this is sometimes but not always the case." This is such a neologism; it has entered the popular culture and can be found in many, many reliable sources (just glancing at the Google News and Google Books search results). The article as it stands is not , either; it cites multiple reliable sources, and while Strauss's book is the main reference, it is far from the only  one. (Newspaper sources include ''The New York Times'' and ''The New York Sun''.) If anything, the article has improved since the last AfD (where the consensus was to keep
— User:A, 05:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Stance: keep
Cited policy: WP:NEO||WP:OR (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)