Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misogynoir


 * 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) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Misogynoir

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This subject is not notable. It is one person's clear promotion of their self-coined term, violating WP:NEO. WP is also not WP:NOTESSAY. This hasn't been cited near enough to warrant inclusion, as there is only journal we can verify where this term has been used not written by the author. We don't even have access to the other journal. I've also removed the Tumblr "references" that people keep adding back in. Cagepanes (talk) 23:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * KEEP - This is notable, see Gradientlair.com and Everydayfeminism.com for sites that use the term. 98.240.156.44 (talk) 07:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * That first site is someone's personal blog, so it's not a reliable third party source. The second may be a reliable source, but that still does not address this being WP:NEO. A few mentions on a small website does not making a neologism notable. --Cagepanes (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment. Well, it does get used in reliable sources; for example,  from The New Republic.  However, I'm not sure that people actually discuss it rather than use it.  Anyone got a source that discusses the term beyond giving out a sentence-long definition? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Cagepanes (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - What grounds do you have for accusing the page creator of being the person who coined the term? The userpage of the creator and the identity of the person listed as coining it seem pretty clearly different. It also looks like you removed a bunch of sources based on being primary or a broken link. Though in your edit summary you say "We do not use first person references", there's not actually a rule prohibiting using primary sources. They're not ideal for most things, acceptable for a few, and don't really contribute to notability, but removing them while nominating seems bad form. Removing a source because the "link does not exist" is, on the other hand, specifically something we don't typically do. I'm not saying any of this was in bad faith (primary sources aren't good to have and if we shouldn't include WP:UNDUE content based solely on primary sources, and I'll add that you were entirely right to remove the Tumblr sources), but it does seem like your edits may be influenced by an impression that this is an article based on self-promotion rather than one written by a student about a topic that interests him/her (speaking of which, I've just notified the user about this discussion). &mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 12:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Whether or not this was created by the original author, it still violates NEO without question. This is not a widely used term, and most of the sources were not appropriate. In trying to clean up this article, I removed the inappropriate ones, then decided after looking online that there isn't widespread enough use of this term to even warrant it being on WP in the first place. If you disagree, that's a separate issue. You're also free to add back in the sources you don't agree with me removing, but I still maintain that they're no appropriate as they definitely violate WP:UNDUE. The only exception to that was removal of the dead links, which I was not aware was a policy. If you have a link so I can read up on that, I'd appreciate it. Tumblr was removed, as were WP:UNDUE first-party sources. I still maintain, whether the other refs are added back or not, that this term does not pass NEO. --Cagepanes (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - The most common issue with neologisms is that even when there are sources, they aren't sufficiently distinguished from existing concepts we already have articles about (another word for the same thing, or another term that's only slightly different). In this case, I don't see a logical merge target. So, given that there are sufficient sources to pass WP:GNG/WP:NEO, I'd have to say keep. Here are sources about the subject (beyond just use of the term -- and there are many of those out there) - CBC, journal article published in Cultural Studies, Critical Methodologies, Abernathy Magazine, Paper, The Awl, Model View Culture, Gradient Lair (a blog referenced by WaPo and Vice), Le Delit, The Crimson White, The Visibility Project, Meta-Activism, Kinja (article-as-definition), Everyday Feminism, Hoodfeminism, Our Time Press, Eyewitness News, Brown Boi Project, The Frisky... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 12:56, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is an important thread in black feminism. The article meets WP:NEO as it has multiple secondary sources that are about the term and not just using it. WP:NOTESSAY was cited as a rationale for deletion, but this article clearly has reliable sources that demonstrate the material is verifiable. Coiner Moya Bailey elaborates on the term in Souls: A Critical Journal of Black Politics, Culture, and Society. Other scholars have offered critical analysis of the term:
 * Some of these sources were already in the article when it was nominated, so the nomination should not have implied that there was only one self-published article verifying use of the term. Per WP:PAYWALL, we don't reject sources just because they are difficult to access. If you ever need access to a source, try asking at a relevant WikiProject or at WP:RX.  gobonobo  + c 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the implication was correct. The journal articles that you've added were not there at the time of nomination. There was one that was able to be accessed, meaning my statement in the nomination was correct. --Cagepanes (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In reality, at the time you nominated both the Macias and Durham journal articles were being used as references. While you display a remarkable competence for someone who started editing less than a month ago, you might want to review WP:BEFORE if you plan to continue working on AfDs. gobonobo  + c 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're reading what I've written. I stated that I could only access one journal article that was open, with the other being closed. Those were the Macias and Durham articles. Is that somehow unclear for you? Perhaps go back and read what I've written, and that should help clear up some of your confusion.--Cagepanes (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Some of these sources were already in the article when it was nominated, so the nomination should not have implied that there was only one self-published article verifying use of the term. Per WP:PAYWALL, we don't reject sources just because they are difficult to access. If you ever need access to a source, try asking at a relevant WikiProject or at WP:RX.  gobonobo  + c 23:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, the implication was correct. The journal articles that you've added were not there at the time of nomination. There was one that was able to be accessed, meaning my statement in the nomination was correct. --Cagepanes (talk) 14:40, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In reality, at the time you nominated both the Macias and Durham journal articles were being used as references. While you display a remarkable competence for someone who started editing less than a month ago, you might want to review WP:BEFORE if you plan to continue working on AfDs. gobonobo  + c 19:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're reading what I've written. I stated that I could only access one journal article that was open, with the other being closed. Those were the Macias and Durham articles. Is that somehow unclear for you? Perhaps go back and read what I've written, and that should help clear up some of your confusion.--Cagepanes (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're reading what I've written. I stated that I could only access one journal article that was open, with the other being closed. Those were the Macias and Durham articles. Is that somehow unclear for you? Perhaps go back and read what I've written, and that should help clear up some of your confusion.--Cagepanes (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep As per the compelling arguments presented Rhododentrites and Gobonobo.Theredproject (talk) 20:13, 7 September 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.