Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ad feminam


 * 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   merge to Ad hominem. Courcelles 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Ad feminam

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Fails WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary since the article only defines the phrase, which is a feminine version of Ad hominem. There is no discussion beyond that. One source is a dictionary, the other two are examples of use. Borock (talk) 23:46, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Tom Morris (talk) 23:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per not a dictionary, also seems subjective and original research.--Dmol (talk) 23:52, 2 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Ad hominem. Plausible search term, but not enough discussion in RS for its own article. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 00:08, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:33, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Ad hominem. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 19:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Ad hominem per Malik Shabazz and WP:SNOW as a sensible closure. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are 5,200 returns on the exact phrase "ad feminam" on Books.Google from all sorts of high quality refs. So I think what it needs is an expansion note and some expanding. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:53, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A huge number of those hits, though, are just Latin quotes or texts that happen to contain the phrase - not on this topic. A number of the others are reprints of the same one or two essays, which also don't address the topic that the article does (the ideas just share a name). And when we do reach the ones that are actually discussing it as a counterpart to ad hominem, most don't distinguish it as a concept, just recognizing it as a PC way of saying ad hominem rather than as an ad hom. based on perceived sex characteristics. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:34, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (t) (c) 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Ad hominem per Roscelese. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Deletim Mergim and redirectim - Politicalim correctim nonus-notibalis neologism — dictionarius definitium. Carrite (talk) 23:03, 10 August 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 23:18, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * A merge to ad hominem would be appropriate. Carrite (talk) 23:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. Valid term used in feminist circles. 24,600 Google results for the exact phrase. - Sikon (talk) 18:25, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * That would only confirm that it is a dictionary term, not that it is a notable subject for an encyclopedia.--Dmol (talk) 20:49, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect to Ad hominem. My76Strat (talk) 21:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Doesn't seem to be enough material to form a good encyclopedia article. Would make a good addition to the Ad hominem article though. Kaldari (talk) 21:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep or merge. Decent material, should exist somewhere.  Would fit well in the the target article.  No case for deletion.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Ad hominem per WP:NAD Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 13:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.