Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femicide in China


 * 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 Female infanticide in China. Although "Femicide" does not conform to the article title policy as either a misnomer or POV fork, there is consensus to keep any uniquely referenced content. To facilitate that, for now the appropriate merge target and redirect would appear to be Female infanticide in China, without prejudice to further discussion regarding the creation of a new and appropriately titled article. Philg88 ♦talk 15:50, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Femicide in China

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:POVFORK of Female infanticide in China. Sex-selective abortions cannot be considered femicide as these are not performed on legal persons, same way as in the relation of abortion to foeticide. 92slim (talk) 23:52, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions.  lavender |(formerly HMSSolent )| lambast  00:39, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete as A7 —Мандичка YO 😜 00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete: The neologism is barbarous as well. "Femicide" would not mean killing of females. "Gynocide" would be closer, but then it would include killing all the females of a place. Sex-selective abortion is a serious problem, and it raises all sorts of concerns, but it's not "femicide." Per nomination: POV. Hithladaeus (talk) 01:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually this is the term. Gendercide is the general term: femicide is for women and androcide for men. But I agree it sounds odd. See my suggestion below.  —Мандичка YO 😜 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are notable cases of mixing Latin and Greek (or arguably doing so), but it seems, now that I see the debate behind the debate, that this one is drawing in sources from all sorts of places, including American legislators who have never met a Classical root. This word's value is aggravated by the debate over gender/sex, where "female" is biological, but "feminine" is gendered. Because that's also linguistically hot.... Oh, well. It doesn't seem like the article shows sufficient RS for the usage, either. Hithladaeus (talk) 14:05, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see an admin declined speedy and I took another look. Maybe could use a different name but I see how this should not be deleted. :-) —Мандичка YO 😜 04:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So who is POV pushing now? --92slim (talk) 04:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (WP:NEO) and merge any contents to Sex-selective abortion or Infanticide. -- Aronzak (talk) 05:31, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - is there any reason the China articles should not follow the same format as the India articles (Female foeticide in India and Female infanticide in India)? There's enough data in Sex-selective abortion and this article to make Female feticide in China, alongside Female infanticide in China. —Мандичка YO 😜 09:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice POV pushing, "pro-lifer". Link to this user's "pro-life" arguments. --92slim (talk) 09:24, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename - Most of the article is about infanticide and sex-selective abortion. Since we already have Female infanticide in China, it seems like it makes the most sense to reframe/trim this to be Sex-selective abortion in China, also using the material from sex-selective abortion. I think the question of "foeticide" vs. "sex-selective abortion" does need to be visited, but that can happen outside of AfD. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 16:48, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it should go to Female feticide in China (since it's only females), and abortion (implying a medical procedure) is only one method of feticide; ie women who are beaten to force miscarriages is also feticide  —Мандичка YO 😜 10:01, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Honest question : Would that be forced miscarriage or forced abortion? If you think this isn't the best place to answer in order to keep the delete discussion uncluttered, we can move to our talk pages.  Pax  Verbum  03:12, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to Female infanticide in China and Sex-selective abortion any content from the relevant subsections that is not in the target articles and delete the rest.
 * Though the lead is a typical POV ("Femicide is considered..." - weasel; ""gendericide" is inaccurate..." - POV) the subsections look ok or cleanable. However, this article is still a patchwork of three different issues (sex-selective abortion, sex-selective infanticide and discrimination), and there ought to be RS to (1) discuss those issues together and (2) give it the term "femicide".
 * On a side note, I have an unpleasant feeling of stepping in the midst of an ongoing feud between Wikimandia and 92slim. Methinks both ought to stay away from issues related to abortion of their own will, before they end topic-banned. Tigraan (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? Please review the related ANI regarding 92slim's behavior. Not a single person suggested I be topic banned (especially considering I have only a few edits in this area) or that I've done anything wrong.  —Мандичка YO 😜 11:15, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think Tigraan was suggesting you be topic banned, or that someone else had said you be topic banned. I think Tigraan was just looking out for you and trying to provide a helpful comment based on what has been seen, nothing more or nothing less.  Pax  Verbum  02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * FYI, User:Wikimandia is banned for a week. So much for his behaviour. --92slim (talk) 15:22, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * My comment was more in line of "calm down everybody" and "I commented on this AfD but I do not want to be dragged in the feud it takes part in". I am not saying the wrongs are coming from both sides, either. Tigraan (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep This could be touched on in Female infanticide in China, but the article itself should stand. While there definitely seems to be POV issues, the two subjects are separate and notable; I think that the content of the article is salvageable.  Pax  Verbum  02:48, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Per above, I agree that content is salvageable, but there are two big issues (related to each other).
 * "Femicide" may be an unnotable neologism (not likely) or have unclear meaning (likely), see comment by Hithladaeus above. Having an unclear title is awkward.
 * The scope of "femicide" could be quite different from the article's "systematic killing of females" which includes abortion (saying it is "killing" is POV), infanticide, and higher death rates due to discrimination (not really "killing", either). The scope of the article is not clear.
 * While I could see an article "Women discrimination in China" (not a good title but you get the idea) that deals with all of this, the current title is incorrect. If, on the other hand, the scope is "crimes aimed specifically at women in China" we are looking at a different article. Tigraan (talk) 15:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge its contents to a newly created Sex-selective abortion in China article just like it is stated above, because the word "femicide" is indeed a neologism. --31.4.238.181 (talk) 12:24, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - There are many well-documented and reliable sources employing the use of the word femicide, indluding Time and the BBC. Also, this article is not just about the word, but about femicide in China, so it's scope is much more encyclopedic. I would also like to point out that this !vote by an IP is the only edit made thus far from from that address...  Pax  Verbum  01:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a well-referenced article on an extremely important topic. Anyone who doubts that sex-selection in China, whether accomplished by abortion, infanticide, or other means, is significant, need only look at this and note the large excess of Chinese males under 20. Given the far-reaching political and social impacts of this phenomenon, breaking the article up into abortion, infanticide, and whatever else just makes no sense. --Sammy1339 (talk) 22:41, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not think anyone disputes the importance of sex discrimination in China. I do not dispute the relevance of an article on such a topic, though others might. But I disagree with the current title and (unclear) scope, see above; in particular, I would very much like to know what is covered by the "whatever else" you mentioned. Tigraan (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete - it's a POVFORK, sourced or not. The info is already in Female infanticide in China and Sex-selective abortion. Kraxler (talk) 20:51, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "The info is already out there" is not an argument, since redundancy can be accepted if it leads to better content organization (Felidae exists along with Felinae and Pantherinae, even though all the info could be gathered in one or two articles). In that case, if there is consensus that the larger topic is notable, there ought to be an article, even if there are POV issues with the current one. Tigraan (talk) 09:22, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Felinae and Pantherinae are subfamilies of Felidae, which means that they are different encyclopedic topics, as considered in Zoology. The article here nominated for deletion and the other two articles mentioned by me are about the same thing, only this one is looking from a biased POV at it, and exists to make a WP:POINT. Hence the need to delete it. Kraxler (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Just noticed this deletion page again, actually there is an article (another WP:POVFORK unfortunately) covering the topic throughly: Missing women of China. --92slim (talk) 23:51, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, merge anything not already in Female infanticide in China. Ghostwheel ʘ 00:23, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge. Tigraan has this right - the article could be made to be encyclopedic, but the title ensures confusion. Femicide is a neologism, albeit a notable one, and like many neologisms it lacks consensus for its meaning. The broadest reading of the term would support an article that covers systematic killing of females for reasons relating primarily to gender whether as sex selection prior to birth or by spouse/family/domestic partners or what have you. A more restrictive reading would have it duplicate Female infanticide in China. Absent reliable sourcing that conflates the topics together, a merge is the best way to organize the content. Xymmax  So let it be written   So let it be done  00:30, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JAaron95  &#40; Talk &#41;  15:38, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article is not just about infanticide but includes info on the deaths of Chinese women after they are born. An interesting topic. Referenced accurately, except I wish the Chinese references were in English. I would suggest even more recent references since so many are from <2010. Notable. Needs some 'wikifying'. Is the article's author participating in this discussion?   Bfpage &#124;leave a message 22:00, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
 * While I personally advocate against keeping I do not think that the sources being "old" is a problem (I mean, the problem was pretty much the same in the 1990s; the sources are not so old). Pinging per your remark (I thought AfD pinged the page creator but apparently not). Tigraan (talk) 17:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have been asked to give my opinion and this article deserves deletion per WP:POVFORK policy. There are indeed at least 3 other articles that contain the exact same content with a different wording/structure. --Vitilsky (talk) 10:43, 3 July 2015 (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.