Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteropatriarchy (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 no consensus.  Sandstein  08:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Heteropatriarchy
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This term is what many would call a neologism. And, per WP:NEO, I'm usually not for neologism articles on Wikipedia. This term is covered in some WP:Reliable sources (see, for example, the Google Books search), but I still question its WP:Notability, and whether it should be a standalone article even if it is WP:Notable; see the WP:No page section of WP:Notability. I argue that this topic can be covered in an existing article with no need for a separate article and that our readers will be better served that way regarding the topic as well. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2016 June 13.  —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 21:19, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. GabeIglesia (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment a redirect to Patriarchy would be an option. Any thoughts? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:49, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like it's used in the following academic books . Offhand some of them seem to discuss it fairly extensively, so if by some chance this can't be kept it should absolutely redirect somewhere. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  08:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Conditional Keep - This looks notable enough for at least a short article, or if nothing else a redirect to a sub-section in Patriarchy. I think if some of the sources in the google books search can be utilized, it's probably enough for a standalone article, even if it remains a short one. -  Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. Looking at Patriarchy and the way it's currently structured, a sub-section there actually would not make sense. All the related concepts are in the See Also section right now, so a redirect would necessitate a rewrite of that whole article in order to not put undue weight on this subsection. Best just keep this article as-is and improve it where it is. Changing to Keep. - Co rb ie V    ☊ ☼ 23:13, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep I find multiple articles on the topic and it seems worthy of a separate article with expansion. Ogress 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect) into Patriarchy. Seems to be a notable aspect of the larger concept, as opposed to being a topic distinguishable from Patriarchy.  Basically, someone wanted to complain that the word Patriarchy implies that gay men also rule, and exclude them from it. I think google scholar confirms that this is notable, but not a new topic. I disagree that the structure of Patriarchy would not allow it to be added in.  A simple mention within the "Feminist Theory" section, for instance, would suffice.  Let's not give undue weight here.  It's notable, but it's not THAT notable. Fieari (talk) 03:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. poorly established term,  DGG ( talk ) 06:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * DGG, did you see the academic books that discuss the term in depth linked above by Tokyogirl79? Fieari (talk) 23:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Iam not sure all of them are using it a specificsense, but I'll look again.  DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep Almafeta (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge and redirect to patriarchy. The sourcing is not sufficient to meet the general notability guideline–all but one source is not even in English, which is suspicious for a neologism. Steven Walling &bull; talk   06:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Steven Walling, I'd like to remind you of WP:NEXIST... it's not the references in the article that count, but the references that exist, whether or not they are in the article. Google scholar returns 2,680 articles and books containing the word.  That's CLEARLY notable. But again, I do agree with you that merging into patriarchy would be appropriate. Fieari (talk) 00:07, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * If the sources exist and are good then they should be added. As it stands, the article doesn't prove notability. Steven Walling &bull; talk   02:16, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't have to prove notability in order to survive AfD. It must merely be able to, at some point in the future, if it were cleaned up, be able to prove notability.  That's what the policy WP:NEXIST is all about.  We don't debate the CURRENT state of the article here, only the potential future article. Fieari (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment since I'm not sure yet - My instinct is to suggest a merge/redirect to patriarchy and/or heterosexism. The concept is basically a combination of the two, and I'm not seeing sufficient depth beyond the addition of the two such that it needs its own article. While there are plenty of sources which use the term, years steeped in cultural studies make me initially skeptical of the notability of academia-friendly combinations of prefixes and big concepts (i.e. they may be useful terms in the way they're deployed, but for Wikipedia's purposes, they're frequently very similar to many other terms, with perhaps marginal differences in meaning or perspective). I note several google hits, including google scholar hits, for "metapatriarchy", "transpatriarchy", etc. for example. ...It's almost like the semiotic assemblages engendered by post-Derridean epistemologies reify the pseudorhizomatic rhetorical policies othering reconstructivist pedagogical technologies of government to conform to paradigms brought into being by a neoliberal realpolitik. ...But I haven't done enough looking to make up my mind :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. I see enough occurrences of this word on Google Books and Google Scholar to convince me that a substantial number of reliable sources exist for this topic. Article state is no argument for deletion so long as reliable sources exist, and it appears they do. SJK (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to patriarchy. This works fine as a subtopic of patriarchy until such time as there is sufficient material to spin off a full sub-article. Kaldari (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ansh 666 02:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - to Patriarchy or Delete, there's no reason to have this as a standalone article. It'd work much better as a subsection of the patriarchy article than as an article itself. Especially given the article is a stub and will likely remain so. The sourcing may be poor too. Mr rnddude (talk) 21:35, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment; after a little bit of research, I find heteropatriarchy to be used in general as a word with a meaning, Wikipedia isn't a dictionary so we don't need articles for every word. That said, it could be useful, to the feminists, if the article is simply merged into the article on Partriarchy, as per my vote several days ago. There's no literature that is about heteropatriarchy (none that I could find) but it is commonly used in feminist literature and their writing in general. Outside of feminism, and their opposition (quite key that they understand the terminology), I don't think anybody uses (or has a use for) the term. It's sort of like the end of Rhododendrites comment, its full of words that exist in the English language, but, expletive about intercourse if I (or the general population) have a clue what on earth their talking about. Mr rnddude (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2016 (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.