Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist rhetoric


 * 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.  Sandstein  09:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Feminist rhetoric

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article would require a complete rewrite to remove the author's opinions and essay-like structure, much of the topic is already covered by articles like Feminism and other such content. Xevus11 (talk) 04:43, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. No, no, no. Deletion would be quite the wrong thing to do. Most articles start off with someone writing something down and then other people come along and improve what is said. That has already started here. The topic is clearly notable and referenced to appropriate sources. I am too old to have much knowledge of the subject matter here so I cannot helpfully judge whether the article is well expressed but it looks to me to provide a good framework and is a thoroughly worthwhile start on the sort of broad topic that is lacking on Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. North America1000 08:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Essay-ish but generally legitimate content on a notable topic should be improved, not deleted. I fail to see any issues here that couldn't be resolved through the ordinary course of editing. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please Keep It looks good apperance. Source Content Self-Maker (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep AfD is not an article improvement service. The topic is quite notable -- see A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, for example. Andrew D. (talk) 17:32, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Out of curiosity, have you read that book? It shows up (twice) on the first page of a GBooks search for this article's title, and if you look closely at the book cover you notice that the title GBooks cites and you repeat is actually incorrect, as the full title would be Man Cannot Speak for Her: A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric, vol. 1, with A Critical Study of Early Feminist Rhetoric being the subtitle of the first part of a single, two-volume work. If you just found it there and linked it, it means you have no idea what its contents are, because there is no GBooks preview. You're technically right on what the result of this AFD should be, but that doesn't make writing comments that imply you are familiar with the scholarly literature when all you did was plug the article title into Google and copy a link to a book whose title looks the most like that of a reputable scholarly publication focused primarily on this topic. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is a reputable scholarly publication. The author, Karlyn Kohrs Campbell,  is a renowned expert in the field of rhetoric and her contribution is listed in the article's bibliography.  As it is a critical analysis, it is an excellent source for our purposes, per WP:ANALYSIS. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Please do not create strawmen. I did not say anything about whether it was or was not actually a reputable scholarly publication, and your implying that I was attacking the author as being anything other than a renowned expert is downright insulting. My problem with your comment above was that it looked like you had Googled up the title of this article and linked the first entry you saw whose title made it look like you could present it is a reputable scholarly publication, and it looked like you would have done this whether or not this was actually the case. Your linking a duplicate entry and giving the wrong title (the one that, again, looks more like that of a reputable scholarly publication) supports this. The source can still be reputable and good for building our article regardless of whether you have actually read it, so I am not attacking the source, and your defending it against an attack I didn't make does not answer my question.
 * So I will ask it again: have you read it?
 * And if the answer is "no", I would ask how you happened across it.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 23:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Agree with Andrew re WP:NOTCLEANUP. That said, I revised and trimmed the article enough to be convinced there's a manifestly notable topic here (not at all exhausted by Feminism or even Feminist literary criticism), and that there's no need to WP:TNT the existing effort. High-quality sources include:
 * FourViolas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FourViolas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FourViolas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * FourViolas (talk) 21:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Appears to be a relatively legit article on a topic that doesn't already have one; no more redundant with feminism than feminist literary criticism is. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 12:00, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep As this is not redundant with Feminism. --Theredproject (talk) 20:49, 1 July 2018 (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.