Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep voice privilege (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 delete. ✗ plicit  14:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Deep voice privilege
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Nonsensical topic that cites a couple of studies/articles that find some sort of correlation between deep voices and doing better, none of which actually use this term. A search for "Deep voice privilege" turns up Youtube videos, Wikipedia mirrors, and Reddit, none of which establishes notability for this. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. AryKun (talk) 09:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete: A pretty clear violation of WP:SYNTH. While a deeper voice may be correlated to privilege, there are very few sources that explicitly write about "deep voice privilege", a term the creator of the article seems to have made up themself. An article in the Syndey Morning Herald (from 2019, after the Wikipedia article was created) contains the phrase, but that's about it. No notability has been established by the sources used in the article, and most of the material here would be better suited for human voice or social privilege. ArcticSeeress (talk) 11:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete For a stand alone article on what amounts to a neologism we need to show both the use of the term and wide application of the concept. At some point people may come up with a broader concept that this falls under, but at present we do not have sourcing that really supports this idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:SYNTH one-study executive school theory which if true, Barry White should've been President and a Supreme Court justice. Duke really needs to find better ways to waste their money.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 17:45, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NEOLOGISM. The Sydney Morning Herald piece linked above and the HuffPo source in the article both cite that one Duke study, hardly broad enough coverage to write about this supposed "privilege", and the term itself is obviously a neologism. —  Ghost River  00:49, 29 January 2022 (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.