Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femme flagging


 * 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. Whether or not a redirect is warranted should be the subject of further discussion. — Mr. Stradivarius  (have a chat) 07:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Femme flagging

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Wikipedia is not for things made up one day on Tumblr. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. There's ultimately not enough coverage in any reliable and independent sources to show that this is anything more than something that was thought up one day. The sources on the article are predominantly tumblr links, which do not show notability. The other links go to various books and sources that do not mention this specific fad at all, especially considering that some were written back in 2000. There really aren't that many sources to show that this is even that big of a fad. This just isn't notable in the here and now.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't think this is yet notable. This isn't something made up in a day but it is a phenomenon in a small subculture that doesn't seem to have broken out of blogs and social networks into the wider consciousness. Maybe in a year or 2 there will be academic articles about it, but I regret that for now it doesn't meet WP:GNG (I'm not sure whether WP:WEB applies here but it doesn't meet that either). The latter part of the article has the feel of WP:OR in that the writer has contextualised femme flagging her/himself, rather than reporting on other people's analyses of the phenomenon. Sadly, unless this gets coverage in mainstream media, gay/lesbian/queer media beyond blogs and tumblr, and/or academic work, it doesn't meet standards for inclusion in Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:55, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 *  Merge /redirect to Handkerchief code from where this most certainly derived. Insomesia (talk) 00:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I would question doing that redirect. The big problem here is notability: evidence suggests that this is not something that ejhoys the sort of widespread awareness that hanky codes do. Mangoe (talk) 03:13, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * And they don't have to, that's why it's not being allowed to stand alone as an article. A section, several sentences, may be able to sum up. Insomesia (talk) 04:50, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In looking for sources I did find Inspired by the frenzy around femme flagging. With more time i think a few sentences in the original article are warranted. And I see no reason a merge/redirect not to be a solution to this article until a few magazine articles emerge. Insomesia (talk) 06:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete: Neologism.— Ryulong ( 琉竜 ) 05:58, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:03, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete mostly for the fact that all the sources that refer to this activity specifically are from Tumblr, Yuku, and other sites that don't count as a primary source. Articles from reputable sites, however, are linked not as supporting the existence of Femme flagging, but as logical support to the ideas behind it. It appears to be original research. Sang&#39;gre Habagat (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Few (if any) reliable sources, and Tumblr drama needs to stay on Tumblr. -- Eastlaw  talk ⁄ contribs 07:26, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. None of the reliable sources actually make mention of this phenomenon as far as I can tell, instead being used to simply support the underlying concept. It's more like a personal essay with these pulled in for support. - Vianello (Talk) 18:05, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I don't agree with consensus here but still think the redirect is appropriate. Insomesia (talk) 19:55, 16 September 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.