For starters, here's a round-up of relevant Reddit posts:

Pro-WL by insurance broker: sartorialconundrum presents the case the whole life. Since he seems knowledgeable and predisposed to favor WL, in my opinion his post is the best resource for the argument in favor of WL. While not right for everyone, it may have its purposes. Among other things, he admits that typical commissions are 70% of deposits in the first year and 10% of deposits for the next 10 years. As high as that sounds, it's really not any worse than a Mutual Fund with a 1% expense ratio, since the MF's ER is on total value, not new deposits. He suggests that WL can be used as the "conservative" or "fixed income" part of a portfolio, and that PUA is usually a good idea if WL is a good idea at all for you. WL has certain tax advantages, too, which frees up all of your tax advantaged contributions to go toward equities.

Some posts where the r/PF community recommends term over whole:

If you read through all of those comment threads, you'll see that r/PF reacts pretty irrationally to WL. In one case, the OP didn't actually have whole life, so the premiums were very reasonable, but the comments recommended dumping the policy anyway. That's a sign that the conventional wisdom has become dogma, which raises a flag for me.

Overall, I still think term is right for 99% of people on r/PF. But I'll continue accumulating links and hopefully at some point I'll be able to more clearly articulate when WL is better than term.

changed March 12, 2013 delete history edit