Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nasty woman


 * 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. Reading through this debate, it's apparent to me that things are pretty split, and there's certainly no consensus at the moment. I don't feel that relisting would do anything to clear things up, so I'm closing it at this time. Given the WP:RECENTISM calls I feel that maybe this subject needs time before a long-term judgement can be made. KaisaL (talk) 01:07, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Nasty woman

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTDIC. The article contains some original research. For instance, the references used to prove that the phrase has influenced memes are just passing mentions. A claim about "worldwide news" is outright false, and nothing in the cited source supports the claim. I do not believe there is significant enough coverage to satisfy GNG, as quantity of sources does not imply quality. At least some in-depth coverage should exist to prove notability. I do not see any reason to keep this as a standalone article. Wikipedia is not a phrase book.

Note: I tried to PROD this, but it was removed by because "given all the mainstream sources referenced, non-notability looks controversial and would need a discussion". Ceosad (talk) 19:11, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Weak keep. Tough. The phrase has not been defined anywhere, but it has gained some traction. But sources like this suggested the topic gained enough coverage to be notable, as a political slogan/phrase. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  06:44, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Agree with the above that this is a tough call. Ultimately, while this phrase has attracted some media coverage, not everything that is newsworthy is also worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Will this phrase have any lasting significance? It certainly seems not. Wikipedia has been hit by endless numbers of trivial articles about US politics during and after the most recent presidential election. AusLondonder (talk) 17:16, 22 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as per WP:NEO: "Neologisms that are in wide use but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG. Not only do we have sources like "How 'Nasty Woman' Became A Viral Call For Solidarity" (The Huffington Post), but we have the many pop culture references, too. Donald's original comment ("Trump calls Clinton 'a nasty woman'", CNN), reactionary coverage ("Sorry, Donald: 'Nasty' Has Long Been a Feminist Rallying Cry", The Atlantic), Ashley Judd's poem ("Tenn. teen wrote Ashley Judd's 'Nasty Woman' poem", USA Today, "Women's March: Ashley Judd recites Nasty Woman poem", Entertainment Weekly''), Katy Perry's t-shit (yes, really), etc. Yes, I realize a t-shirt is trivial, but my point is there's more to "nasty woman" than just being a political phrase. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 03:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment/Note: There may be some additional content and sourcing to consider at Draft:Nasty woman. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 04:03, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * If kept, the content of this article should be merged into the draft (and this article deleted to make way). Pet peev: editors blowing off (or anything less than looking for) the big notice at the top when creating a page if there's a draft by the same name. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 11:24, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I don't think big notices always notify editors attempting to create new articles that similarly-titled drafts exist, and we can't expect everyone to know about the draft space, let alone search for entries before creating every new article. Also, the live "Nasty woman" article was originally created as "Nasty woman meme", then moved (by me, actually), so this may have also contributed to the duplicate creations. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:38, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Can't say I agree with the first part of this. But I don't want to go off on a tangent. Instead, I think I see a good subject for an essay that doesn't yet seem to be covered... &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 23:50, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge to an appropriate article: I think that even if there is enough material to establish notability, I can't see it generating enough material for much more than a stub. Merging it to an appropriate article and redirecting the term would allow some appropriate coverage, while leaving scope to expand it into a full article if sufficient coverage warrants it further down the line. I'm not sure what the article would be - perhaps the article on the United States presidential debates, 2016, but I'm not sure if it would outweigh its prominence in the debate (the notability of the term seems to be as much about the backlash and its reclamation as Trump's utterance in the first place). — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 09:32, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: You know, I was wondering about the appropriateness of creating an article specifically about the third and final presidential debate, which received a lot of coverage and could also incorporate content related to the "You're the puppet" comment made by Trump. See also: Draft:You're the puppet. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Fwiw, my suggestion would be to simply add that to United_States_presidential_debates,_2016. Right now, there's no mention of it at all. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. Seem to be sufficient coverage in sources and significant social discourse related to the phrase. My very best wishes (talk) 21:54, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It's generated coverage in the months after Trump uttered it during the debate, seemingly making it a notable rallying cry.LM2000 (talk) 23:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as it has entered the vernacular, and is very well sourced. Notability is established by terrific sources and wide recognition of the phrase.198.58.162.200 (talk) 00:51, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep In wide use, sources are there for WP:GNG and satisfies any questions about WP:NEOLOGISM and WP:NOT.  freshacconci  (✉) 01:05, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just did a Google News search on "nasty woman", and found and added references to five articles (from three different countries) published in the last two weeks. It's a notable phrase of lasting value to the encyclopedia. Funcrunch (talk) 02:11, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Was a major theme in the 2016 election and became a meme. Article needs work, but more than notable, easily passes GNG (and FFS, we kept Resting bitch face.   Montanabw (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOTDICT, WP:NEO, WP:GNG, and WP:RECENTISM. TheDracologist (talk) 03:14, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and expand. The term is not new, so WP:NEO and WP:RECENTISM does not apply. It's written about in this 1994 journal on JSTOR (if you sign up you can read it on your virtual JSTOR bookshelf), in this 2006 journal (subscription required), it is discussed in relation to The Color Purple where Shug is described as "nasty woman" who has outsider status in the community (p. 85-86 in this 2009 book), another article about Toni Morrison written in 2004, it is used to describe women who will not "take back" their husbands in this 1972 Journal, an entire 2003 book, The University of San Francisco Law Review has a 2017 article titled "Nasty Women and the Rule of Law." The term has clearly been used to describe a "certain type" women in the past and it received a strong push from Trump's use of it in the debate. The references in the article are strong, and it looks like the "original research" tag should be removed, since all statements are cited. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as a political phrase used on an ongoing basis. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete: This is a neologism. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. WP:NEO and WP:NOTDICT. 188.238.17.66 (talk) 14:59, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The sources and examples of usage demonstrate that the term as used in the article is not a definition, per WP:NOTDICT: "a person, or a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing etc. that their title can denote." This term is a concept that the phrase now denotes for a number of clear uses beyond the etymology of the individual words.  freshacconci  (✉) 15:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It is still a neologism. See WP:NEO that is part of the same policy. The article is just a bad stub, so saying that it is not written like a definition does not mean much... WP:RECENTISM probably applies here too. Ceosad (talk) 16:23, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, it is NOT a case of WP:NEO. See my argument with references above. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * There is no evidence that those references use the phrase in the same context as Trump did. Claiming that they do would be original research. I agree with Lemongirl942 about that. Ceosad (talk) 13:15, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm aware that WP:NEO is part of the same policy and that it reads in the first line: "Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That is no longer the case: there are multiple sources showing wide usage and there is no evidence that this article was created to increase usage of the term but rather to provide an article about a legitimate cultural term in wide use. As for recentism, that essay is not policy, nor a guideline. Nevertheless, it still does not apply: "Recentism is a phenomenon on Wikipedia where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view..." No evidence of that, and if the article as it stands does not aim toward a long-term historical view, that is an issue for editing and expansion, not deleting, as there are demonstrably enough solid sources to accomplish that.  freshacconci  (✉) 16:41, 26 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete (or redirect somewhere and add content there) This reminds me of "Fuck her right in the pussy" which was closed as a redirect (which remained redirected, even after a deletion review).
 * Memes/internet pehenomenon needs to pass WP:EVENT and I don't see WP:PERSISTENT and WP:LASTING coverage about this.
 * The ccoverage presented in the AFD prior to Trump's use is not useful here. There is no proof that any previous usage of "nasty woman" was in the same context as Trump's. Appropriating previous usage into this phenomenon is WP:OR.
 * Keeping this as a standalone article is another good example of WP:SYSTEMICBIAS. Apparently every minute thing about the US Presidential election is notable for a standalone article.
 * I can get behind merging this content into an appropriate article. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * The difference being "nasty woman' has received a lot more coverage and use in popular culture. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 14:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've seen more lasting media coverage for "Nasty woman" than for "Nevertheless, she persisted." The latter has its own article which has not been sent to AfD (as of this time). Funcrunch (talk) 16:30, 27 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – Hasn't really entered mainstream language, contrary to similar "nasty" political expressions such as Basket of deplorables or Binders full of women. — JFG talk 15:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that because those expressions are more specific — that is, they are recent metaphors, essentially coined by the speaker with whom they are associated, as opposed to "nasty woman", which is fairly generic slur — that they would flag up in the political lexicon because of that clear association. In the case of "nasty woman", though, it is that Trump used such a phrase in a Presidential debate that is the significant issue, and which should be covered, hence my suggestion for its inclusion in a relevant article if insufficient material for an article (but enough to establish notability) can be brought together at this point.
 * Meme-spinning and bandwagonning aside, the issue at hand is how notable it is for one candidate to use such a phrase. — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's a common expression, which means that a brief mention of Trump's use in the debate page is all we shall ever need. — JFG talk 22:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Revisiting and elaborating my iVote, I continue to think that we need to delete this article because it is not so much a 2-word neologism (as described in the article and by most of the 'keep" iVotes above,) as it is two very common English words that, even in justaposition, have at least the meanings 1.) a woman who is willing to get down and dirty, 2.) a political pejorative for a self-confident female, 3.) a woman who is enjoys engaging in sex - in this sense it used to be a pejorative, 4.) a woman who is an unpleasant person.  Even Merriam Webster is having trouble keeping up with the many and nuanced uses of this pair of words..  Fails WP:NOTDICTIONARY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:33, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Zigzig20s (talk) 17:02, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Right, it's an encyclopedia, and should include entries for notable topics, like this one. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 22:12, 28 March 2017 (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.