Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call-out culture (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Well, it seems like while there are many ... debatable sources here, there are also some sources that have gone uncontested and are claimed to support WP:GNG/WP:NEO (as pointed out by WP:NEXIST, even sources that aren't currently used in the article can establish notability). Some proposals for mergers and redirections have been made, not receiving enough support for a consensus in their favour. So keep, but if people still want a merger they can start a talk page discussion to that effect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:23, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Call-out culture
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Wikipedia is not a dictionary Bacondrum (talk) 08:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here. Literally pinging in the 7 editors with the most edits: I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia. It is poorly written, poorly cited, it is a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary. What do you lot think?. Bacondrum (talk) 02:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Delete The article is about a neologism that has little or no usage in reliable sources. There are no reliable sources that mention the subject. Bacondrum (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Nomination appears to be a failed WP:BEFORE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:56, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, the pings in the nomination seem to be completely nonsensical at best and malicious/canvassing at worst. There is basically zero overlap with the editors listed at the xtools.wmflabs.org entry for the article. Why is that? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:49, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Note for context, the above paragraph was originally: Not canvasing, just hoping to get experienced and uninvolved editors opinions here as I don't believe this article belongs on wikipedia by any stretch of the imagination, it is not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. Literally pinging in the 8 editors with the most edits: @: @: @: @: @: @: @: @: What do you lot think?. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Reliable sourced do exist, for example: Hearing Vocation Differently: Meaning, Purpose, and Identity in the Multi-Faith Academy , David Cunningham, Oxford University Press. pp. 46 ff. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Please, feel free to improve the article by adding reliable sources you find. Bacondrum (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 09:25, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep but RENAME "Social media mob", a more common term for the same phenomenon (also known as "social media mobbing".) Good soruces do exist, including: Amanda Hess, New York Times, 2018 : ''https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/07/magazine/some-online-mobs-are-vicious-others-are-perfectly-rational.html].E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Op-eds are primary sources, this is a primary sources not a reliable source for statements of fact. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not an op-ed, article is labeled: "Amanda Hess is a critic at large for The New York Times," and, as you say, the opinions of notable literary critics like Amanda Hess can be used to build a page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep or Merge with Online shaming - Simply being a neologism is not sufficient reason to delete, it must be shown that it is only a neologism and not a notable topic worthy of a stand-alone Wiki article. Is this a notable phenomenon? Well, there certainly seem to be plenty of articles discussing it. For example this article defines it thus:
 * "The system of pseudo-peer-reviewing on Tumblr is called a “call-out culture,” where users will police the posts that they feel do not align with Tumblr’s need for inclusivity. “Call-out” culture can be positive in its system of checks and balances because it derails the spread of misinformation, but this policing is generally assumed to be negative due to the aggression from which “calling-out” stems. While “call-out” culture is a double-edged sword, it is ultimately a practice of consciousness-raising partly because of the publicity that stems from the arguments, but mostly because the internet is made into a forum for debate and education."
 * Undergraduate student essay. Not a reliable source. Bacondrum (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are other sources that give similar definitions and are enough to sustain notability (e.g., 1 2 3). My main concern is that Online shaming covers similar ground (although not the actual culture so maybe there's room for two articles). FOARP (talk) 13:01, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The first two appear to be reliable sources, please feel free to improve the article using them, the last one is an op-ed and is thus unreliable in this context. Bacondrum (talk) 22:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Hoo, boy. I thought that this page was paltry, but Online shaming is even worse (no attempt to define or to source the term/concept; subheads without sources; long list of subheaded but non -bluelinked "examples") .  It is also not a search term I had though of, although I had searched for an article on this topic just yesterday, and failed to find one.  On the other hand, our article on Doxing is surprisingly good, proving that we could turn this into a good page.   User:FOARP, do we discuss what to do with Online shaming there, here, or somewhere else?E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is decided that merge is a better option than keep, then we can talk about what to merge this article to or whether other articles should be merged into this one. If Online shaming needs deleting then it should be AFD'd. Otherwise page quality issues are for the talk page. I think you're right that the problems with Online shaming seem worse than those for Call-out culture. There's also the related concept of Cyberbullying but again that seems a related, but not identical, phenomenon. FOARP (talk) 18:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't oppose keeping the page if it was significanty improved, when I first came across it the page was horrendous and virtually unintelligible, the current version is certainly "paltry", to put it mildly. As it stands the page should be deleted. Bacondrum (talk) 22:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree online shaming is a shocker of a page, but at least it contains some reliable, secondary sources and the secondary sources appear to be authored by people with relevant expertise. Bacondrum (talk) 22:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. As was explained to Bacondrum in the article's talk page, despite there being no one clear definition of what it is, there are plenty of reliable sources talking about it, and each defines it more or less similarly. Alex.osheter (talk) 20:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly direct us to a single reliable source used in the article? (keeping in mind that an op-ed is not a reliable source for a neologism)Bacondrum (talk) 22:02, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The state of referencing in the article is not key to deciding whether the article should be deleted or not. There are multiple reliable sources discussing the concept of "Callout culture". For example, here, Dr. Ealasaid Munro, a lecturer in Communications, Media, and Culture at the University of Stirling, defines "Callout culture" as one "in which sexism or misogyny can be called out and challenged ... facilitat[ing] the creation of a global community of feminists who use the Internet both for discussion and activism" (quoted here). Similarly here, Prof. Michael Berube, a Professor of Literature at Penn State University, states that "In so- cial media, what is known as “callout culture” and “ally theater” (in which people demonstrate their bona fides as allies of a vulnerable population) often produces a swell of online outrage that demands that a post or a tweet be taken down or deleted". There are other such references easily findable through a GScholar search and otherwise, and other references are already provided above. It does not matter that these references are not yet included in the article. FOARP (talk) 07:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not mine or any other editors job to find citations to back other editors assertions. If you find reliable sources and you can improve the article then by all means, do it. As it stood and as it currently stands the article is not encyclopedic, cites sources that are poor, inappropriate and\or do not support statements. I personally had never heard of "callout culture” till I came across the Call-out culture link in a see also section. I'd never heard of “ally theater" at all until now. Bacondrum (talk) 07:47, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is the nominator's job to confirm whether a page should be deleted before nominating it. No, it does not matter that the references are not yet included in the article. No, it does not matter that you've never heard of it. FOARP (talk) 08:10, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not an established terminology. Not an encyclopedic subject. Cited sources are poor or do not support statements. I found no sources, I can't possibly know of them all. Improve the article. if you know better, do better. Bacondrum (talk) 08:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There's some serious "Didn't hear that" going on here. How much more of an WP:RS do you get than scholarly articles by established academics in reputable journals? Again, the present state of the article doesn't matter for AFD - it's the possible state that matters. FOARP (talk) 08:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary I heard you, I searched for sources in good faith, it is you who is not listing: I found no sources (and I spent a good amount of my precious time doing so), I couldn't find a single article or paper that even mentioned the term. I can't possibly know of all papers or articles in existence. If you found a quality source, improve the article and it may no longer warrant deletion. Improve the article. If you know better, do better. Or perhaps you are here pushing the term? I dunno? All I know is that I came to read an article and it was very hard to make sense of, pretty much a POV, right-wing biased rant about how terrible feminists are and was structured like a dogs breakfast, I tried to improve it, but found all citations were op-eds, it's a neologism and doesn't belong here as far as I can see, happy to be proved wrong. Bacondrum (talk) 09:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep - the article is not perfect but has a lot of good references from reliable sources. The AFD nomination is misguided. Deleting it wipes out an enormous amount of excellent work on an important topic; most of the work that has been done on this article is completely in keeping with the various Wikipedia standards for encyclopedic content and reliable sources. DeRossitt (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep – This nomination seems to be in bad faith. There were a great many more sources (86) before Bacondrum began to slice up the article. Yes, it was in bad shape as it was in the process of merging in cancel culture, but there was extensive sourcing from a large number of reliable sources (including many prominent authors and publications) that were summarily removed by Bacondrum prior to listing the article here. I understand the intent behind the edits and in some ways the article had definitely grown too large and lost focus, but to suggest the term(s) have little or no usage in reliable sources is bunk. I also agree that there are a number of closely related terms all about the same or extremely similar terms/phrases like Milkshake Duck, online shaming, public shaming, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, online boycott, outrage culture, and/or outrage porn (though I'm sure there are others out there as well) and, in theory, a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon is created, keeping this article is a fair outcome and deletion serves no purpose. At the very least it should be redirected to one of the similar terms/phrases listed above. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 03:50, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I made the nomination in good faith, and you should assume as much. Poor form. Care to point out a reliable source in the version as it was? It's a neologism and wikipedia is not a dictionary, the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Bacondrum (talk) 01:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * There are several, but the first one I saw (that has since been removed) is: Another (that is still present) is:  I stand by my point: to suggest the term(s) have "little or no usage in reliable sources" is bunk. As is your assertion that the article also lacked even a single reliable citation. Articles by Suzanna Danuta Walters in The Chronicle of Higher Education and Conor Friedersdorf in The Atlantic both easily qualify as reliable secondary sources for a neologism (not to mention the subsequent sources that others have identified above), and that was just in the opening paragraph of the first merged version of the article that I linked to above. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also, removing 95% of an article and then saying it lacks sources in an AfD is pretty egregious. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 04:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Also also, doing stuff like this is a bad idea. Do not change your statements after people have already responded to them per WP:REDACTED. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 05:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Not reliable sources for a neologism. They are op-eds, primary sources. Bacondrum (talk) 04:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Also also, "a single article encompassing all of these terms could suffice. (Indeed that was the point of merging cancel culture and call-out culture.) Until such a time as that centralized article about the general phenomenon"... you had it right the first time, it is a term, not a phenomena, a phenomena is an event or an occurrence...this is a big part of the problem with this article, the subject is not being clearly defined and calling it a phenomena is misleading. Calling a term a phenomenon is clearly pushing the term and biased in it's presentation of said term. Entirely cited using op-eds, it is therefor 100% POV. Bacondrum (talk) 09:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bacondrum (talk • contribs) 04:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)   Stop editing comments after others have replied per WP:REDACTED. Changing the time is not apropriate. If you don't know how to fix something, ask how to fix it. Don't make it worse. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:33, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly (1), you are 100% mistaken about The Atlantic: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 240. (And, in fairness, I was mistaken about the The Chronicle of Higher Education article being a secondary source, as it is from The Chronicle Review, but that doesn't change the fact that it is a RS: Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 117. It just happens to be a primary source in this case.) Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article. Furthermore, just because a source is a primary source does not mean it needs to be summarily removed from the article.Secondly (2), call-out culture, cancel culture and outrage culture are all terms (each one being an individual "term") that describe the same/a very similar type of behavior or phenomenon. There are a series of similar terms/articles (inclusive of the three above) that each describe similar behaviors/phenomena: e.g. outrage porn/outrage media/outrage journalism, Milkshake Duck, public shaming, online shaming, online boycott, cyberbullying, mobbing, mob justice, moral panic, and likely others. I don't know how you managed to lose sight of that in what I wrote. I thought it was fairly clear.Regarding some kind of merger (3), WP:NEO states: In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title. In this case there are a great many "short-hand term[s]" all describing very similar things. I would support some kind of merged page with "a descriptive phrase in plain English" that encompasses the described phenomena (across more than just the "culture" terms) generally, but I don't think this is the proper venue for hashing that kind of thing out.Finally (4), I'd like to kindly ask you to stop your disruptive editing at the article in question. You are right at the WP:3RR threshold. (123 each restoring this addition of the neologism template.)P.S. Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination. I can't find the 1st one. Does it exist? - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 08:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Conor Friedersdorf and the Atlantic a Reliable Source?" not as a primary source (op-ed) about a neologism. Not at all. Thanks for acknowledging the other source is not good enough, now we are making some progress, I hope you understand the rest of the citations used are also primary sources.
 * "Regardless, as established by many other editors here, there are reliable (primary and secondary) sources for the article"  kindly point one out then. There are none as far as I can see, all op-eds, 100% of them.
 * "I thought it was fairly clear" not at all. You lot keep saying there are secondary sources, but there are none. If other editors have found some I'd ask them to improve the article.
 * "I would support some kind of merged page" I'd possibly support the term being mentioned on a page about social media terms more broadly...I might not oppose this page as a stand alone if it can be demonstrated that the subject is encyclopedic, the page is edited into a well written, clear and reliably cited article, or it is demonstrated that it's more than just a passing fad or a term a handful of university activists or op-ed writers have used - remembering that Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
 * I've switched out the neologism template for the primary source template, it should not be removed until the issues have been addressed, namely the complete lack of secondary source, secondly the need to establish that this is an encyclopedic subject. I have no axe to grind here, the page is just nothing like an encyclopedic entry, primary sources are not reliable for this subject even if it can be demonstrated that it is encyclopedic. It absolutely needs to be improved or removed. I'm interested as to why editors who claim to have secondary sources have not improved the article, looks like pushing a particular view or the term itself to me. Bacondrum (talk) 09:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * "Why was this AfD listed as the 2nd nomination." I can't find it either, my mistake. I must have gotten mixed up with another article I was looking at or something. Bacondrum (talk) 09:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Mistakes happen to everyone (including myself as I noted above), but perhaps you should recognize that you have been making a lot of mistakes with this article and begin to self-reflect. My responses to your previous comments are below:
 * Para1: There is nothing wrong with using reliable primary sources in support of specific points in the article as long as they are properly attributed. You keep on removing these points simply because they are primary sources without any regard for their reliability. Please stop.
 * Para2: Here are several (and I'm sure there are more):
 * They have been pointed out to you multiple times but you just seem to ignore them. The fact that they exist and discuss the term is enough to satisfy WP:NEO, and therefore the article should be kept.
 * Para3: Stop twisting my words. The sources I listed above are already in the article and you keep asserting there are none. Furthermore, this does not mean that reliable primary sources are completely worthless on their own.
 * Para4: Well, lucky for everyone, we don't need to satisfy you in particular, especially since you are being disruptive.
 * Para5: This could be interpreted as a self-revert, except that it shows that you are continuing to edit disruptively. In fact, it was noted at this edit warring report that you have done this at this article in the past. Please stop and gain consenses for your edits if they are disputed going forward. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Para3: Stop twisting my words. The sources I listed above are already in the article and you keep asserting there are none. Furthermore, this does not mean that reliable primary sources are completely worthless on their own.
 * Para4: Well, lucky for everyone, we don't need to satisfy you in particular, especially since you are being disruptive.
 * Para5: This could be interpreted as a self-revert, except that it shows that you are continuing to edit disruptively. In fact, it was noted at this edit warring report that you have done this at this article in the past. Please stop and gain consenses for your edits if they are disputed going forward. - Paul T [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Psantora&action=edit +]/C 15:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. It is not a neologism when it is a mixture of very simple words. This meets WP:GNG, I found, the book Kill All Normies has a "culture war" perspective on this, and the British book Feminism: A Fourth Wave? discusses this. w umbolo   ^^^  13:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, that's exactly what an neologism is, a new term, often created by combining words. Bacondrum (talk) 04:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
 * The argument editors above make is that his term passes WP:NEOE.M.Gregory (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep it's clearly a notable neologism discussed at length in multiple reliable sources. summoned by bot to the RfC, felt it was more appropriate to comment here signed,Rosguill talk 04:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge with Online shaming - The scope of this article is already covered by Online shaming. I don't think it warrants an entirely separate article. Kaldari (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2019 (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.