Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hipster sexism


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Hipster sexism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term was coined and defined a couple of months ago in an article by Allissa Quart on New York Magazine's website. It's basically something she just made up one day rather than a notable concept. It hasn't been picked up by scholars or analyzed independently by anyone. &mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:34, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I actually ran into this and was tempted to PROD it as just another neologism, but if you search for the term you'll see it has relatively widespread coverage. § FreeRangeFrog croak 18:54, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * In reliable sources? Can you link to some of your results?  What I found were occasional mentions, e.g. this senior thesis, along with the article it came from.  If I've missed enough places where actual reliable sources discuss the concept I'd be happy to withdraw.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 11:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - as with Hipster racism, there are enough sources to justify an article in my view, even if they're not scholarly ones. Robofish (talk) 13:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Just following the regular google search link I saw articles from Huffington Post, Slate, as well as another on on the Hindu Business Line. CarolMooreDC 04:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note that the HuffPo piece is just a reprint of the original NY Mag piece already cited in the article, the Slate piece merely provides a link to the article, and the Hindu Business Line piece uses the term but does not discuss it. Obviously the term is used a lot, but it's not discussed anywhere I can find outside of Quart's original article.&mdash; alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 12:35, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep, good deal of secondary source coverage among multiple sorts of references. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant coverage in reliable sources demonstrate that this topic meets WP:GNG. A search for "ironic sexism" brings up more sources as well. Christianity Today even picked up on this. Gobōnobō  + c 06:31, 15 January 2013 (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.