Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Female privilege


 * 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.

Per the discussion, there appear to be several problems with this article: None of the sources mentioned in the discussion appear to deal directly and significantly with the subject of "female privilege" per se. In other words, it looks like there are no reliable sources primarily about female privilege. Thus this article will never contain a substantial amount of content that isn't original research (within the context defined by the title). Of the few reliable sources that do mention "female privilege", they seem to mostly be within the context of the men's rights movement. I believe the proper disposition of this AfD is to delete the original research and merge the remaining content into Men's rights leaving a redirect. If "female privilege" becomes an established term at some point in the future, this decision can be revisited. Kaldari (talk) 02:48, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) It consists almost entirely of original research/synthesis (only one of the sources actually mentions female privilege)
 * 2) The phrase "female privilege" is a neologism which does not appear to be well established (compared to "male privilege")
 * 3) The scope of the article is already covered by Men's rights and Male privilege

Female privilege
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log )

Provides no evidence that this is a valid sociological concept. Is a product of an organized raid on wikipedia by the Reddit.com antifeminist forum Contrada10 (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC) — Contrada10 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. A hogepodge of synthesis, none of which is supported by sources present, which all just present bare facts. Sourceable facts like "X number of women were killed in combat in WWII. Y number of men were killed in combat in WWII" are synthesised into "[female conscription privilege] has contributed to a discrepancy of casualties by gender". No sources present which discuss the idea of "female privilege" as a sociological construct, which is what the article purports to be about. In short, the article is a whole lot of OR and synthesis which attempt to support a persuasive-essay-style thesis that women are privileged, and pretty much nothing else. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. Synth synth synth. By the way, I had to restore the AFD tag after it was removed, so one ought to keep an eye on the article to make sure that people are being directed here properly. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 07:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. This page is rather new and if every new page that was incomplete or missing sources was deleted then wikipedia wouldn't exist. I'm also not seeing where the site you linked to is anti-feminist and I wonder if you could elaborate more on that assertion. Further more Wikimedia can not remain neural if being against a main stream ideology is cause to bar you from editing. I do not that the lack of sources as a deletion claim has any merit as long as vandals keep removing citations from the page as the history page shows. Also, from viewing the post linked i can not see how this constitutes a "raid" on wikipedia as no malicious intent is shown Kyleshome (talk) 11:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Whether or not reddit is anti-feminist or not is immaterial to this AfD, unless someone is trying to use reddit as a reliable source in Female privilege. In addition, I don't believe anyone has been blocked for opposing any ideology, or specifically blocked for editing the Female privilege article at all, so that dog won't hunt. And lastly, can you point to where you say the article is being vandalised? I see a number of editors removing inappropriate content and explaining their policy-based edits to the article, and a number of IPs and new editors reverting them with no explanation. The former (editors removing content with explanation) is not vandalism, and the latter (undoing with no explanation) is mildly disruptive but much more likely to be a case of new editors not understanding our content policies than it is to be "vandalism", which implies malice. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 17:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The vandalism claim refers to full on blanking out the article, as seen in the history page by ip users. You can also see childish comments replacing whole sections. And while you can claim no one's been barred from editing. My assertion still stands that by focusing on the editors Anti-Feminism ideas in a negative tone (by the user who started the deletion request) It comes off as an attempt to discredit the person based on an assumption of what website they came from. This entire deletion request along with the tone surrounding it comes off as a violation of WP:BITE and WP:AGF Kyleshome (talk) 01:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirect to male privilege (I know, that sounds sexist, cant be helped). the phrase has some use, but is not significant, not on a par with male privilege (probably due to the fact that male privilege is rampant and well documented, while female privileges are few and far between) this use is an example. Article as it stands is synth, but i dont think it could be reworked.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, based upon the quote here regarding the Equal Rights Amendment, perhaps we should simply split some of the dissenting section off of that article and move it to this one. Subverted (talk • contribs) 23:49, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, article consists of synthesis and original research. Kevin (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It also - and importantly - fails the WP:GNG. Kevin (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, inconsistent with the rules regarding synthesis and original research Paintedxbird (talk) 04:36, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. There has not been an effort from those attempting to have the article deleted to improve the article or discuss the article on the talk page. As it stands, the article has potential and already is seeing more evidence and citation than most articles in this stage. The article is being treated with haste and recklessness and there is no reason for deletion as per Wikipedia's deletion policy. 24.93.169.212 (talk) 05:04, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because there's nothing to improve upon; all the editing in the world is not going to change the fact that the central premise of the article is made up. Risker (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only "made up" premise is the term "female privilege". This fact at most warrants a rename of the article; deletion would mean lesser access to information on Wikipedia. If no academic literature is able to be found coining the term "female privilege", then this article could be repurposed as a list of statistical female advantage, probably under its own section in Female privilege. 24.93.169.212 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Well no, that's the thing about reliable sources. Without them, we can't say what's an "advantage" and what's a "disadvantage" to begin with, let alone amass a list of what we claim to be advantages. Without reliable sources discussing female privilege and/or female advantages, we simply can't go and create list of things we have no evidence exist. Even with sources saying "Numbers of women for X is foo, numbers of men for X is bar. Women's number is higher," how do you define an advantage if the source doesn't say it is one? Is it an advantage if fewer women die on the front line of a war, or is it a disadvantage because it means women who want equality aren't being treated equally by the armed forces? Which of these one things is the "right" perception seems to be largely a matter of ideology, and Wikipedia doesn't take positions on ideological stances like that by labeling them "advantage" or "disadvantage" on our own wherewithal. Which brings us back to the need for third-party, scholarly, neutral sources - if we don't have substantial sources saying "this is female privilege", or even "females have an advantage here", then we simply are not able to have an article about female privilege (or a list of female advantages). A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 02:03, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete - per my comment above. None of the sources used to "build" this article put forward the central premise of the article. Risker (talk) 19:45, 26 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. The central premise of the article is that there are many ways women are unjustly treated better than men simply on the basis of gender. That premise is demonstrably true. I note that all the arguments against such as "synth" etc. apply equally to the male privilege article, which has remained untouched for months.Celdaz (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's demonstrably true that a range of organic chemicals exist. Not all of them qualify for articles.©Geni 02:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, essentially Articles for Deletion discussion debate pages are not for cleanup purposes. This topic is notable. It's received coverage in literally thousands of different books. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 07:36, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is if you actualy look at the books they don't appear to be talking about the same thing as the article.©Geni 10:59, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's kind of funny that you cite a point from arguments to avoid.. and then instantly start going all WP:GHITS, another point in the same essay. The fact that two words are used side by side in several thousand books does not in any way shape or form establish notability.  Kevin (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: What a hot mess. If someone could improve this, I could favor keeping it. For now, it might need to be started from scratch. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment while I would imagine that the topic is more notable than many other articles that have somehow managed to pass the AfD process, I don't see anything salvagable from the current, or any of the previous versions that I looked at. So I guess I am "Delete without prejudice" for recreation from scratch utilizing appropriate non-OR sourcing. -- The Red Pen of Doom  18:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

 * Comment: The previously mentioned anti-feminist group on reddit has linked to this AfD and will likely start opposing deletion soon. WillowDRosenberg (talk) 19:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * — WillowDRosenberg (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. Male Privilege as a concept has existed since second wave feminism in the 1970s. Female Privilege has only recently entered popular and academic discourse due to societal changes. Therefore, I feel it is disingenuous to claim there is not a long enough history of notability. Problems with the article should be addressed, but the article itself kept. Redirecting to Male Privilege is absurd, no one would search 'female privilege' looking for male privilege. There are enough female-privileged aspects of modern western life, and enough of an opposition group has grown (the previously mentioned mens rights people), that the concept is notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Ds2207 (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Here is a piece of evidence showing the Female Priviledge exists: "Women should not be sent to prison and should instead serve community sentences, according to a new report by the Women's Justice Taskforce." http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13666066 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegidio (talk • contribs) 21:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * it is over 6 months old so hardly new. More significantly the term Female privilege doesn't appear in the article.©Geni 23:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * — Vegidio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Delete. Synth. MrDrak (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC).
 * Delete. Synth, dubious biased sources, provides no evidence from respected sources. Dr kmaxwell (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * — Dr kmaxwell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. While I agree with much of the concern, I see no reason to remove this page entirely. The term "female privilege" is clearly in use by parts of the population and that alone justifies an encyclopedic entry of the term regardless of whether the object it is describing exists or not. I encourage every editor to look at the counterpart male privilege before deciding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlife (talk • contribs) 22:23, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * — Scarlife (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Keep. As others have mentioned this is the direct counterpart to Male Privilege and is becoming more and more prevalent. Also would like to point out that Contrada10 has no edits aside from proposing this AfD - I find this highly suspect. Subverted (talk • contribs) 22:43, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's kind of funny to bring up the edit count of the nominator as suspicious when I (~5000 edits), Risker (~20,000 edits and an arbitrator,) Fluffernutter (~26,000 edits and an oversighter,) are all saying delete and most of the keep votes are from people with next to no edits. Not that I'm saying edit count actually matters, mind you, this is just an especially weird instance to bring it up.  Kevin (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Im sorry you feel it is funny to bring up, to me it seems like a rather interesting point. After looking into some of the history of Roscelese, Paintedxbird, and a couple others on here...I am not too surprised to see their posts bearing "delete" at the beginning. Subverted (talk • contribs) 23:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is reasonable to claim that "female privilege" does not exist as a real-world phenomenon (although I would disagree), but it is unreasonable to claim that it does not exist as a concept when "male privilege" is a well-accepted concept, and thus unreasonable to use non-existence as a basis for deletion - it's like suggesting that Unicorn should be deleted because it doesn't exist. The article is a little bare right now, but there seem to be plenty of sources (for example this editorial from a women's magazine), so it definitely has potential. Pirsq (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment: An area of verifiable examples of female privilege is that of deviation from gender norms and sexual orientation. One example would be the male/female dress code in particular in professional corporate environments. Men not only have a narrower choice of acceptable attire, but will also suffer more severe consequences when failing to abide by those standards.
 * Hard evidence can be found in the case of hate crimes against homosexuals where male homosexuals are targeted with far greater hostility and efficiency than female homosexuals resulting in a far greater male victim count. An extremely strong example of this kind of female privilege is the persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany. The most reliable estimates are that 10.000 to 15.000 male homosexuals were deported into concentration camps of which around 53% perished (source:Rüdiger Lautmann). Some estimates are far greater because of the unknown number of homosexuals who were murdered for other reasons such as being Jewish for example. Female homosexuals were not persecuted for their sexuality. They did not fall under the homosexuals-paragraph 175. No evidence has been found confirming the persecution of even one single female homosexual under the Nazi regime because of their sexuality. Source: Joachim Müller: "Comparability of the living circumstances of lesbian women with the living circumstances of gay men in national socialism (and after 1945)", Berlin 2007. The "grey literature" copy is listed in the America-Memorial Library in Berlin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlife (talk • contribs) 23:48, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please look at our notability standards and our rules on original research. Thanks, Kevin (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Then how about Wikipedia: Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany and the Holocaust? Feel free to contribute better sources if you have them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scarlife (talk • contribs) 00:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please actually read the pages I linked. The problem is not that your facts are necessarily wrong, the problem is that synthesizing facts to make any claim not present in reliable sources is original research by our standard and unacceptable. You cannot make claims like this to advance the idea of female privilege unless you can post a reliable source that makes those same claims. Kevin (talk) 00:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The only point of contention in that example might be that female privilege does not necessarily follow from having a systemic persecution of only male citizens of said characteristic. That challenge is not likely to be taken seriously in any discourse. Otherwise, if I understand you correctly, the problem is that the sources do not necessarily explicitly use the term "female privilege". In that case I ask you what would constitute sufficient reference to the term when a descriptive reference such as "men did not have the freedom that women had" is insufficient by your standard. What about synonyms or foreign languages the translation of which can result in different wording dependent on slight differences in the interpretation of words like "privilege"? Scarlife (talk) 01:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Regardless of whether or not you think it's a challenge that is likely to be taken seriously in any outside-of-Wikipedia discourse, within the confines of Wikipedia that is not the sort of claim that editors are able to make on their own authority. If it's a noteworthy claim that is worth including in a Wikipedia article, you can find a reliable source outside of Wikipedia that has already made it. Otherwise, it's original research.  And yeah, for an article on the neologism female privilege to be kept, we'll need to find sources talking about it as a term.  For concepts which are frequently discussed in foreign languages but for which no English language term exists, we do not get to make up an English term or use a non-notable English term - we use the foreign term.  So if an idea similar to this is widely discussed in Finnish sources but labeled as 'kunnia naaraat' instead of 'female privilege' then our article would be called 'kunnia naaraat', not 'female privilege.' More guidance on how to title articles that deal with things only discussed in foreign language sources can be found at Article_titles. Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * To all the recent people voting keep... please remember that this is not a democracy. The closing administrator will close the discussion based on the balance of policy compliant arguments put forth.  If you don't explain why, according to our policies, this article should be kept, then your vote will be meaningless.  Kevin (talk) 22:53, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Kevin, please be aware of how you come off. I have read through each argument (but I didn't find it necessary to look up everyone's edit history) and am treating this as a discussion between people, not a competition between Wikipedia accounts. Just touting some Wikipedia jargon like "synth" without engaging valid viewpoints is alienating and appears brutish to people who are not especially active within the wiki-microcosm. While the closing administrator does have final say, Jimmy Wales *did* intend for Wikipedia to operate democratically on politicized articles such as this one (obviously STEM articles, in which there is only one truth, are different.) I will remain anonymous for this comment; I really don't care if this article is kept or not, as this will likely be the first and last time I read it. Still, the implications of Wikipedia editors acting in your dismissive and totalitarian way leaves a sour taste in my mouth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.194.93.130 (talk) 00:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooh, it's always fun to be called a dismissive totalitarian brute. In my mind, the really dismissive thing I could do here would be to just not respond at all.  Whether or not I mention it, this AfD would have been closed by the closing admin on the balance of policy compliant viewpoints.  Mentioning it allows y'all to look up the policies I mentioned, and figure out how to argue from a policy standpoint that the article should be kept, instead of simply getting confused when the article is deleted in a week.  I am more than happy to answer the questions of any good-faith newcomers about any of the issues related to this AfD.   Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * We could "engage in discussion" all you want, but the fact remains that WP:SYNTH is a policy "a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow. " It applies to this article (and every article) and if you want to ignore that, then all the discussing in the world is simply wasting time. -- The Red Pen of Doom  00:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm glad you did choose to reply and engage with me. I agree that original research is bad and does not belong on an encyclopedia. SYNTH is a valuable policy. But most of the "keep" people do seem to be arguing that any original research can just be removed and the article edited to conform with standards. The article in its current form is quite a piece of work. I agree. However, I do think the concept of female privilege deserves to be covered in an encyclopedia so comprehensive, it has articles on obscure anime shows. Improve the article, do not delete it. The *concept* of female privilege was not just cooked up by some kid in his basement and posted to Wikipedia, there is an active community working on gender issues from *both* sides. 67.194.93.130 (talk) 00:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a volunteer project. If you think there is an article here, YOU can make it happen! by adding content from reliably published sources that specifically discuss the concept of "Female privilege" (and not just a collection of "I know women being treated better than men when I see it") and we wont need to go through the rest of the process. I did a quick look in google books about for "Female privilege" and "sociology" thinking it would be easy to make this a viable stub, but I found nada to work with.-- The Red Pen of Doom  00:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC) expanded --  The Red Pen of Doom  01:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem with the strategy of just removing all the synthesis and OR is that if we did that - if we removed everything where the article was drawing a conclusion not in the source, everything where the source quotes facts but doesn't discuss them in the context of female privilege where the article cites it as if it does, everything where "the practice of X involving women exists" is being used to claim "this sociological concept exists and is notable" - there would pretty much be no more content in the article. That's what some of the delete voters mean when they say they don't mind a re-do with better sourcing, but that there's nothing salvageable in the current article or its history. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:49, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's any content here worth keeping, but this is a plausible search term because we have an article on male privilege. With plausible search terms, we can do better for our readers than a redlink.  Find a suitable redirect target.— S Marshall  T/C 00:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2
It really amazes me that people here can argue that an article on female privilege is unworthy, has no worthwhile content, etc. when there are reliable sources that show women are given lesser sentences than men for identical crimes (after factoring in criminal record, etc.) Meanwhile, the article on male privilege is safe and secure, when it describes such things as "full-time working men earn more than women" (because they work longer hours and choose harder, higher-paying jobs). Celdaz (talk) 00:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * note: Celda is a promiment /r/mensrights user, his comments ought not be taken as those of an impartial wikipedian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.78.110.69 (talk) 03:43, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You could always fix the other article if you want, Celdaz. Or, if you think it's irredeemable, you could propose it for deletion. Arguing that other crappy stuff exists, however, is not a valid argument to use in an AfD. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete For the reasons Fluffernutter, Kgorman-ucb and Risker have laid out: badly sourced synthesis on a topic which isn't actually used expect outside of the confines of men's rights activist forums. —Tom Morris (talk) 02:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. Reviewing sources on Google Books, I see a number of relevant hits suggesting this is a notable concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; talk to me 05:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Strong delete: I'm going to pin my colours to the mast here and say I found out about this through SA (and personally hold (pro-)feminist views). If you've been following the news recently, SA has taken a rather dim view of subreddits such as r/mensrights. That said... the article, much like most misogynist men's rights bullshit, is pure synthesis of something like "well, women got off the Titanic first" and "women in the UK cannot be prosecuted for rape". This is why such a topic cannot be notable: because it doesn't exist in real life. The idea of male privilege has been discussed for years, and has plenty of actual real-life evidence, and that shows in secondary academic sources. But there's no equivalent academic discourse of the idea of female privilege because it doesn't really exist outside misogynist MRA circles. That the phrase "female privilege" appears in a few books in a Google search doesn't change that fact: this topic is not treated as any more of a small footnote in the discussion of male privilege. I also note that the article about men's rights is on article probation, and I would recommend that an admin officially notify any significant contributors to the article as toward the probation. Sceptre (talk) 08:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You don't actually need to be an administrator to notify someone of the probation, just to enforce it. Feel free to notify any participants of the terms of the article probation following the procedure laid out on that page - I may put up an editnotice or something to make sure more people are aware. Kevin (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This sort of comment really does not help make a case for deletion and it definitely does not contribute to the discussion. Scarlife (talk) 09:07, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This article is all of five days old. This seems like an incredibly hasty move.  There are articles that exist as stubs for months, if not longer - the article's quality is no reason to delete it.  Indeed, the aforementioned stubs often have poor or even no citations.  The rebuttal section on the male privilege article alone offers sufficient evidence that this is a notable topic, and its sources satisfy WP:SYNTH concerns.  Furthermore, the initiator claiming that this article "is a product of an organized raid on wikipedia by the Reddit.com antifeminist forum" is nonproductive.  Calling a men's rights group antifeminist is itself inflammatory.  I hesitate to step outside of assuming good faith, but it would appear opposition to this article is based on topic rather than wikipedia policies.  131.151.68.66 (talk) 10:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment female privilege isn't an objectively defined term so it's very likely we'd end up with a biased coatrack article without NPOV. with ever more synth and original research. the term doesn't have credibility or currency within verifiable, unbiased, quality sources. google hits, blog posts and unspecific usage of the term do not merit it to have a standalone wikipage. maybe an expert from WP:SOCIOLOGY can corroborate? Paintedxbird (talk) 18:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I checked the scholar link at the top of the page to look for sources, and this was the first link, which firmly repudiates the WP:SYNTH argument:
 * "Having denied that men are privileged relative to women, this movement divides into those who believe that men and women are equally harmed by sexism and those who believe that society has become a bastion of female privilege and male degradation. Whereas the women's movement has created new options for women, men have not been given the same range of choices.  Thus, a new sexism has been born, a sexism that thrives on male bashing and male blaming.  The agenda of the men's rights perspective is to bring about an understanding of the new sexism and to create laws that protect men against current injustices in such areas as divorce, child custody, affirmative action, domestic violence prosecution, and sexual harassment." http://digilib.bc.edu/reserves/en125/grif/en125105.pdf It's at the bottom of page 11. 131.151.68.66 (talk) 11:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment The context of the text you quote is important: the book discusses a number of perspectives that various groups hold regarding masculinity, and what you quoted is the perspective attributed to "the men's rights perspective" - that is, the author is not saying that this is his opinion, or that he holds it to be true, he's only saying that within the men's rights movement, this is the view they hold. The author also characterises feminism, gay masculinity, conservatism, and few other viewpoints according to their internal beliefs, and it would be disingenuous to cite the paragraph you quote as evidence for the reality of men being discriminated against when it's actually evidence for "this is what men's rights activists believe to be the case, which is different from what these other seven groups - each of which disagrees with all the others - believe to be the case". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Whether or not men are discriminated against or not is irrelevent. The earth is demonstrably and factually not flat. Yet Flat Earth is an acceptable article because there have been reliable third party sources that discuss the concept, define it, give its place in history and otherwise place it into context. So far, there are no sources shown that do the same for "Female privilege" without coming through the lens of Wikipedians making "original research" claims. --  The Red Pen of Doom  15:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment kevin clatterbaugh doesn't support, define, expound or justify the idea of "female privilege". quite the opposite. he's simply citing that it's what MRAs claim to be against. if you read more of the source and explore his career he repeatedly attacks their arguments. the source is being intentionally misinterpreted and doesn't fit the claim. Paintedxbird (talk) 17:55, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment As red, fluff, and painted have said - this brief mention does not provide enough background to write an article that is not riddled with synthesis and original research, and one brief mention is not enough to meet the GNG. Kevin (talk) 18:23, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I support the clearly SYNTH article as currently written, but the topic is notable exactly for the reasons Paintedxbird just described. Coverage is coverage whether it is critical, in support of, descriptive, from whichever point of view, describing another point of view, confirming, denying, painting as fact or fiction.  WP:N is about notability, or being noteworthy.  The independent reliable source found the subject of note and covered it.  That is what WP:N is based on.  The rest of it is an argument against WP:V which is where we get into controversial content that need strong citations.  But the subject is notable and there should be an article on it; just not this one.--v/r -TP 21:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)\
 * Comment how can it be notable when kevin clatterbaugh only mentions the term in passing without clearly defining what it constitutes? the passage he used the term is centred around men's rights, not female privilege. there's no explicit explanation for the term that can be arrived at without synthesis or more coverage. "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Paintedxbird (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The above source uses the words "female" and "privilege" next to each other - but in the same clause that uses the words "male" and "degradation" next to each other. It is not at all clear that this source is using the phrase "female privilege" as a specific and definable encyclopedia topic any more than it could be used to justify "male degradation" as a topic. --  The Red Pen of Doom  21:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No one has yet brought forth sources that indicate notability. A passing mention in a book isn't the type of coverage that WP:GNG or WP:NEO is looking for.  I dug through half a dozen pages of google books without finding enough sources that offer substantial coverage to the idea of female privilege to meet the GNG.  It's possible those sources exist, and if so, the article should be kept - but I haven't found them, and no one has brought them forward. (editconflicted this) Kevin (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Kevin: I went through the book sources and they arn't passing mentions; you're selling them short. @ TheRedPenOfDoom: that is the worst argument in the history of AFDs.  I'm not going to paraphrase how I read it because of this article probation, but if any other administrator thinks along the same lines as me, that argument will be ignored.  Arguing that a phrase and a corresponding sentence that describes that phrase does not indeed describe it as a phrase but as two different words is quite a stretch of the tongue.--v/r - TP 21:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * @ Kevin: Family interventions in domestic violence: a handbook of gender-inclusive theory and treatment by Tonia L. Nicholls; Hamel, John on Page 30 details Female Privilege: "a large number of the female perpetrators she works with slap their male partners when they behave badly, and she said these women dismiss such assaults by calling them "sopa opera" slaps.  This is an example of what may be called female privilege, and it is becoming a disturbing trend in our society today" 64.42.240.5 (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * You have obviously been attending different AfD's than I have been.-- The Red Pen of Doom  21:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Please share the specific book sources you are looking at then. Kevin (talk) 21:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually edit conflicted with you while posting them. Look below.--v/r - TP 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete and immediately recreate with a new article that has proper citations that describe the subject, the citations are independent and reliable, and the article is written in a neutral point of view that doesn't contain WP:SYNTH. The subject is notable but the currently article does a poor and unsalvageable job of describing it.--v/r - TP 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--v/r - TP 21:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are three sources I base my !vote on. The first is a book and I quote a passage that clearly describes this subject:  "The director also told me that a large number of the female perpetrators she works with slap their male partners when they behave badly, and said these women dismiss such assaults by calling them "soap opera" slaps.  This is an example of what may be called "female privilege, and it is becoming a disturbing trend in our society today.".  My searches also led me to believe, although I could find no online copy of it, that there is a description of this in the "Journal of Marriage and Family", Vol. 61, No. 1, Feb., 1999, in an article called Maternal Gatekeeping... by Allen & Hawkins.  Except here: http://www.jstor.org/pss/353894.  My reason for believing this is not in the except, but I've found citations in other books that point here.  Also  this segment also describes this.  This is clearly not enough for a FA, but the sources are enough for a stub article on the subject.--v/r - TP 21:51, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment you want to start a stub starting with a sentence that defines female privilege as the beliefs held by women who slap their partners? that's all it specifies without synthesis. you'd need multiple sources to establish the notability and verifiability of that definition. "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected.[3] Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Paintedxbird (talk) 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The article would read something like: "Female privilege is (blah blah blah). According to (whomever that author is), an example of female privilege has been described as (however he described it that case)."  Where is the WP:SYNTH?  The first sentence would be the lead per WP:LEAD and summarize the rest of the article; unless you consider WP:LEAD synonymous with WP:SYNTH, this should be acceptable.--v/r - TP 22:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment your lead is not exempt from needing citations. i said the synth would arise from any interpretation of "female privilege" deviating from the specific description in the text. separately once again i would say this needs corroboration from other sources so that it's shown to have a wide acceptance and prove notability. Paintedxbird (talk) 22:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, you're wrong again. See LEADCITE.  Please educate yourself before copycating the other arguments in this AFD.--v/r - TP 23:13, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what is it you've proven? it says that not all articles necessarily need to cite sources, but as a controversial and fringe claim i will challenge it based on the lack of significant coverage under notability and verifiability standards. that's all i meant. please remember civility. Paintedxbird (talk) 23:46, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh I see, so you're dispute anything you don't like? In that case, see WP:POINTY. Welcome to Wikipedia, we have a policy/guideline for everything. Arguing because you don't like what it says is disruptive editing. If you have a specific dispute with a sentence I haven't even written yet, it should be better than "I'm disputing it for the sake of invoking WP:V and getting it removed." The lead summarizes the article, citations for content can exist in the body of the article. And just because a subject is hard to author prose that meets WP:V doesn't make the subject less worthy of WP:N.--v/r - TP 23:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment please don't attempt to mind-read or put words in my mouth. once again civility and agf. i'm not disrupting anything. if the page deserves to be published it will be. i'm contesting your definition for the reasons i have said. there isn't a clear definition of the term and what explanations you have aren't necessarily shared by multiple sources which questions notability. Paintedxbird (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Might I suggest that if the article does get re-created based on more acceptable sourcing and premises, then you guys can work out what the lead should say? Arguing about it here and now is a bit of a derail. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 00:07, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I editconflicted posting this, and need to run out for a couple minutes, so I can't update it to reflect new posts.
 * The only one of these sources that clearly supports the existence of this article is the first - and that's the only source that has so far been put forward that is clearly talking about "female privilege" instead of just using the word female next to the word privilege. The second source you posted you have not read yourself, so you cannot know if there is coverage there, or how substantive the coverage is - so using it to support your !vote at this point is weird.  I'll see if I can get it when I'm on an academic network later today, and if I can I'll let you know.  The last book you linked is from the early 20th century, well before the idea of privilege (social inequality) was suggested.  Although it does say 'female privilege,' I don't think it's intended to function as a meaningful phrase - I can find thousands of books that have the phrase "Your dog died" in them, but it would be ridiculous to write an article called "Your dog died" just because it's repeated a lot in books. Additionally, since it antedates the sociological term 'privilege' by at least 60 years, I don't think it can possibly be used to support the existence of this article.


 * The totality of the sources posted so far would be insufficient to write a stub, and badly fail WP:NEO. Kevin (talk) 22:10, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Several sources I found pointed to this journal article when they mentioned female privilege so I'm hopeful and optimistic it is covered there. I'd appreciate anything you find.  The last quote, despite it's age, actually covers the modern day concern of this right's movement.  Discounting it based on age would be wrong.  There are many books that have the terms "female privilege" and I linked to this one specifically because I felt it matched the context of the modern definition.  This passage for example from the same book has historical significance and relates directly to the subject at hand.  Although the examples are outdated, the subject is the same.--v/r - TP 22:19, 29 February 2012 (UTC)--v/r - TP 22:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * After the IP posted the link, my searches also led me to the Maternal Gatekeeping article as a potentially useful source. But we still seem to be lacking anything concrete in what I would think would be pretty essential, a source for "Female privilege is (blah blah blah)." -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The source I linked earlier could easily be paraphrased as something along the lines of "Female privilege is the discrimination in favor of women in such areas as divorce, child custody, affirmative action, domestic violence prosecution, and sexual harassment."  Although the source does not attempt to show that this is true, it very clearly defines the concept.  As Subverted said below, this isn't the first place this term has appeared on wikipedia; it's hardly original research. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 12:02, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats a little bit too much "paraphrasing" - the source is one author stating his interpretation of what he feels is the men's rights movement's definition of the term. For the Wikipedia article to use that as its basis for the "definition" of this concept would be stretching a bit far in my opinion. -- The Red Pen of Doom  15:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, that's poor argument for an AFD. Arguing a source is not suitable because it's one authors interpretation is exactly counter to WP:N.  We cover topics that have received notice by sources.  Sources most often are single authors perceptions.  Even if the author wrote about what the 'men's rights movement' says rather their his own perceptions, it's still notice of a legitimate topic and can be phrased as "Men's rights see themselves as...".  The source is legitimate as far as WP:N is concerns, how it's used is a matter for WP:V.--v/r - TP 16:11, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention ". If we cannot tell that the author is specifically disussing the topic of the article, (which applies in this case since we do not even have a definition of the topic) it is absolutely based on application of WP:N. for example, someone may put the words "attractive" and "nuisance" next to each other, but that doesnt mean they are talking about Attractive nuisance -- The Red Pen of Doom  22:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm just going to stop replying to you since you consistently try to argue to obvious isn't true. He is talking about female privilage and your argument that despite that he uses the exact phrase "female privilage" in the exact right context that men's right's activists put it in, it isn't what the author is talking about.  It's like you are saying "Despite that the sky is blue and there are clouds in it, that doesn't mean it's a sky."  So, you're pointless argument is going to be ignored now.--v/r - TP 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment as has been said before it's not even clear that's what he meant. he uses the term "female privilege" as well as "male degradation" and then lists what the men's rights movement is about. superficial usage isn't significant coverage required for notability. nor are there any multiple credible sources that back the claim. also, it'd still be original research as you are reinterpreting something that doesn't promote the same view. "This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources. To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented (and as presented)."Paintedxbird (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * See my reply to The Red Pen of Doom, same goes for you. Your making a WP:CRYSTAL argument here.  "I havent even seen what your going to say, but I'm telling you now I'll oppose it despite that it's WP:POINTY.  So you're being ignored now too until you make a real argument.--v/r - TP 23:23, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment what do you mean i haven't seen what you're going to say? you've illustrated it already. again, it's not actually WP:POINT to criticise an edition. everyone is entitled to do that according to WP:V. all you have are cherrypicked quotations from sources of varied relevance using the term in a broad and sometimes incidental way and no elaboration on what constitutes female privilege without synthesis. this is a fringe view coatrack that doesn't even meet notability standards. Paintedxbird (talk) 23:42, 1 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a significant enough topic to merit its own article without quickly becoming original synthesis (or outright ranting). Possibly redirect to men's rights or Male privilege.Citing (talk) 03:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment Just found this gem adding to credulity of the article: |"according to Prof. D. Diane Davis, "tend to be interested in female privilege rather than equality"." I dont really have the time/interest to actually fix this article due to IRL matters but this is the second place (first, linked above) the term/idea appears already on wikipedia. If the SYNTH claims would be dropped already I would happily support deletion and recreation with more/proper sources. Subverted (talk • contribs) 09:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. As the article is being incrementally deleted by those wishing for it to disappear in its entirety, there is little purpose to wiping the page clean. 131.151.161.156 (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Please point to a specific edit that you find problematic - and, in doing so, please keep in mind that according to our content policies, it is in fact appropriate to remove synthesis and original research from any article (though, as a minor note, I haven't removed anything from this article myself. Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Here is a good source from USA Today to show that Female Privilege is a significant topic. It's called Girls get extra school help while boys get Ritalin. Here is another one from Psychology Today called The End of Boys. According to the articles, men who are already mature are not in much trouble, but boys and young men are not being given as many resources as girls and young women. There is clearly a problem here. I would go further and say, from my own personal experience as an adult male with Asperger's Syndrome, that this phenomenon has had devastating effects on us. Men get punished simply for being men. Every man can identify with this. Whether it's feeling afraid to walk on the street and look the wrong way, or it's no access to shelters that accept men or boys over a certain age (16, for example, even though the boy is part of a family with a mother who is the primary recipient of the the abuse). Women get more services and have more privileges than men do. Personally, I think if "female privilege" is deleted then "male privilege" should be deleted. Whoever it is that wants this deleted is just angry, and possibly scared. It's a shame really. I hope they can learn to play fair. "Female Privilege" is an important concept people should know about. I have read this whole page and not seen one legitimate reason why it should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kire1975 (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Neither of those articles deals, specifically, with 'female privilege.' To have a Wikipedia article about 'female privilege,' we need sources that explicitly discuss the concept - not sources that talk simply about differences or inequalities between men and women.Kevin (kgorman-ucb) (talk) 06:53, 2 March 2012 (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.