Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rape chant


 * 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. Needs improvement though. Less Unless (talk) 18:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Rape chant

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

You can find plenty of journalistic accounts of this sort of thing happening (usually by undergrad boys at a college) and I do not in any way underplay the severity of such crass calls for violence. The issue for me is that you can have any number of journalists say some people did a thing, like make a Hole in one. Notability comes from analysis of the topic. Otherwise we're letting the media drive a neologism. If we wait for secondary sources we can get actual sources about the phenomenon, not just cases where it was observed. All I could find in that regard is a single article in Girlhood Studies. I wish the embittered SPA who created this would not have moved this into mainspace from draft so we wouldn't have to have this discussion. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Crime.  Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:39, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify: This has been moved precipitately to main space twice now, by the creating editor. In the period between the draftification and their migration it back to mainspace they worked on it to improve it. The nominator has encapsulated perfectly the issue with neologisms, even ones as far back as 2011, the first reported instance. WP:NOTNEWS applies. We need more than just news reports of occurences. We need to see and record what is said about the topic, not simply reports of the fact that ut has happened in several places. That is what being an encyclopaedia article is about. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:46, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep I think this article should be preserved and improved. These chants occur world wide but few talk about them. It is almost a given to just let them slide and think its boys being boys. This 20 minute TV segment looks into the incidents in Canada at depth. https://www.tvo.org/video/rena-bivens-rape-chant-controversy Sleuthman (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Are there sources you can point to that talk about the phenomenon of rape chants (i.e. please don't include news reports on just one instance, but some sort of analysis?) For example an academic paper? (Google Scholar or the Wikipedia Library are the places to find such things, if you are new to this). CT55555 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of a source that was included in the article. https://trauma.blog.yorku.ca/2013/11/rape-chants-prevalent-on-university-campuses/
 * It explores the concept Sleuthman (talk) 00:36, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Warning to other editors that the content in the link above is not easy reading!
 * But it does suggest notability, and does include analysis, and although a "blog" it's quite an academic one. This does push me towards saying this should be kept. I wonder what @Chris troutman thinks? Is that a second good source, in your opinion? CT55555 (talk) 00:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sleuthman The difficulty with this source is that it is a blog, and unlikely to pass WP:RS, though it assuredly does discuss the phenomenon in addition to an instance of it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:42, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is a university blog though to be fair. Info about author. "Shira Yufe is a Ph.D. Candidate in the Clinical Psychology program at York University" Sleuthman (talk) 00:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Sleuthman My view is that it can be treated as a weight in the scale pan of retention, but does not in and of itself do any of the heavy lifting required. The author pedigree is excellent, but that does not turn it into RS. For me it ranks as a primary source with factual authority, but that is as far as out goes. We may use primary sources in a limited manner, See WP:PRIMARY. 🇺🇦  Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:53, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I called it a "blog" too, but when I look into it, the "about us" says "The Trauma & Mental Health Report is a weekly online magazine published out of York University in Toronto" The author is a professional and a PhD candidate. Upon reflection, I'd argue (based on common sense, maybe policy I am unaware of would prove this wrong) this source seems reliable. CT55555 (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See my opinion about heavy lifting in reply to Sleuthman above. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:54, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It's a good source and the sort of stuff the article needs. As others said, you can argue if the blog is reliable but let's just say it is. If this article had five or six more sources that talked about the phenomenon instead of two dozen news accounts of this criminal shameful misbehavior, we might have a case for notability. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:20, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment maybe I am missing something, but the article has a dozen very good sources. Apparently the objection is that the sources don't sufficiently delve into the reasons for the behaviour (?) This appears to be a novel requirement; I am currently working on an article about the Qing military, yet am unaware of any specific requirement that the article delve into the reasons why the Qing thought they needed one. Perhaps someone can shed some light on this. Meanwhile, if I don't get back to this before the close, please count this as a weak draftify, hopefully with better guidance as to what is being asked for Elinruby (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Elinruby for me the difference is subtle but also simple. We can record any number of events of this nature, but all we get is a list, and a set of news items. Or we can record both events and what is said about the phenomenon in significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the phenomenon, and we get an encyclopaedic article about the phenomenon.
 * One is news, and WP:NOTNEWS applies. The other is being what we should be, a proper tertiary source. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Allow me to clarify: encyclopedia articles collate the reporting of relevant sources about a topic. Per WP:SYNTH, we cannot use a mix of primary sources to promote the editor's theory. What we get is the current version: on this day according to this source this thing happened. We don't tell the reader what the thing is or why it occurs or the factors involved because the sources don't necessarily tell us and we can't synthesize. Getting back to your example, your sources (presumably) talk about the Qing military. The sources then describe what that was. You're not (presumably) reading about individual Han soldiers during the Qing era and then advancing your own analysis about what the Qing military was. For rape chants, none of the journalism say what the phenomenon is except to say that students chanted a thing and the newspaper labeled that a rape chant. This article couldn't even be a list of times a rape chant was uttered because the subject fails WP:NLIST. Our articles about Stars could not be a list of times people looking into the night sky and saw stars. Our encyclopedia requires analysis. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 00:10, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Chris troutman Would you consider adapting your nomination to be for draftification in order to give the creating editor and others some time leeway to work on this without the pressure of fighting a nominal deletion deadline? They may be able to find sources that you have not. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 00:32, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, I would not. There is no loss in deleting an insufficient article and there is no deadline. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:13, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment Does the sole source found by the nominator mean they did the searches and concluded this is not a notable topic? Clarification on that would be helpful to me. @Chris troutman also what outcome do you recommend? Draftify? Deletion? Improvement? My first impression is that this is maybe (and maybe not) a noteable topic, so improvement while at AFD would be the best outcome. CT55555  (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * My apologies; I usually write clearer, more formulaic nominations. As I elude to in my sentence "All I could find in that regard... I did a BEFORE search and found many more journalism accounts than the article currently uses. However, I still find because there is no only one secondary source analysis of the phenomenon the subject fails WP:GNG. Though there are plenty of accounts of rape chants I don't know when, if ever, someone will write comprehensively about the phenomenon so I've nominated for deletion. This editor or others can start fresh at what point they can make a case for notability with better source material.


 * Weak keep After asking a few questions above, reflecting on the answers, I find the one mentioned academic source, plus the York University hosted report both provide analysis of the phenomenon enough to just barely pass notability. I know many require three good sources and this is an argument made on one good source, one arguable source, plus a bunch of news articles. This said, I would gently encourage the author to move this to draft or agree for that to happen and get the article in good shape before moving it into main space. specifically incorporating more content from the sources I mention. Drafity would also be an acceptable outcome to me. Deletion, I do not think, is necessary. CT55555  (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment: Here are two sources that explore the phenomenon in some depth. Both sources include the opinions of academics. https://trauma.blog.yorku.ca/2013/11/rape-chants-prevalent-on-university-campuses/ AND https://www.tvo.org/video/rena-bivens-rape-chant-controversy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuthman (talk • contribs) 01:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd encourage you to add content from them into the article (or to move into draft and not feel the time pressure). CT55555 (talk) 01:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I second that advice, both parts of it. 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 01:04, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Here's a third source. It's academic
 * Anderson, Lyndsay, and Marnina Gonick. "The Saint Mary’s Rape Chant: A Discourse Analysis of Media Coverage." Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2021, pp. 52-67. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/saint-mary-s-rape-chant/docview/2494215632/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2021.140106. Sleuthman (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Draftify the article barely passes WP:GNG as CT55555 mentioned. I would say that the article can be further improved in draftspace so that it doesn't "hang on the edge" of GNG and if the article is in good quality, then it can be moved to mainspace. Tails   Wx  01:21, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am leaning towards k**p, but that is not my official !vote yet. I found another academic source, not sure if it has been brought to the table yet. A chapter, Rape Chant at Saint Mary's University: A Convergence of Business School Ethics, Alcohol Consumption, and Varsity Sport, by Judy Haiven, in the 2017 book, Sexual Violence at Canadian Universities Activism, Institutional Responses, and Strategies for Change, Wilfrid Laurier University Press, ISBN 9781771122856. Link here Sorry, no page numbers, but search for the term, "Rape Chant" and you will find it (Chapter 5). I'll see what else I may be able to find. It would be a good idea to search in other languages than English, if other editors would like to help with that since it is an international phenomenon. Netherzone (talk) 01:40, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There was another scandal at Dalhousie University that resulted in a task force and a report. I am not certain "rape chant" is discussed however. Elinruby (talk) 02:01, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks @Elinruby, I found this re: Dalhousie U: Outrage over SMU Frosh Chant in the Dalhousie Gazette,, where the phenomenon is described as: highly offensive chant condoning the rape of underage women - so basically it's "rape chant". Also this: Pretty disgusting: Dalhousie students react to allegations of sexually violent Facebook posts, in SaltWire: which states in relation to those who want to pass it off as "humor": “Why is it, because they’re women, that it’s okay and funny to talk about committing sexualized violence against them? Why is it funny to have a rape chant?”. I am wondering since there have been several incidents in Canada if someone would be willing to search in French Google to see if anything turns up through a French language search. I am also thinking that if it is not kept in its present state, or draftified, perhaps it could be merged into Rape culture. Either way, when I consider if the encyclopedia would be better off with or without the article, I'm leaning towards that its retention would be an improvement to the encyclopedia, and an asset for our readers. Netherzone (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Theoretically Google should also show me French-language results, but this works better when I use a French-language browser and search terms, which is not the case at the moment. I will take a look specifically for this at some point in the next couple days. Elinruby (talk) 04:03, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Also a super quick search on Google Scholar produces these results:,,, , therefore I think the nominator's analogy that the term is similar to "Hole in one" is flawed, rape chant is clearly a cultural phenomenon. Admittedly, I have not yet read all this hits on scholar, however it seems clear that scholars are indeed analyzing this phenomenon in a significant way. Netherzone (talk) 02:35, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't think posting a list of search engine results you haven't read is appropriate. Looking at those hits, perhaps there is enough coverage about the incident at St. Mary's University but I don't see coverage about the phenomenon that WP:42 requires. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 03:11, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chris troutman, fair enough. I'll be traveling over the next couple days, which is why I did a "super quick search" in advance of departure. If I'm able to do a deep dive into these results I'll see what I can find that may (or may not) be in-depth. I'm fairly certain I can get to it before this AfD closes (which is why I have not formally !voted yet, and only commented). However, it does seem that there are scholars who have published in academic journals in addition to Girlhood Studies, such as Gender & Society, English Studies in Canada, Canadian Journal of Higher Education, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, as well as additional books. I'm not certain how many of the journals are behind paywalls, but will investigate. Netherzone (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I added this to Wikiproject delete sorting Sexuality and gender (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * !keep (open to draftification, renaming, deletion, etc). Google has less than 4k hits for "rape chant" and many of the top ones are actually things like "“Pro-Rape” chant"; pretty much all are primary sources. There are a bunch of passing mentions in google scholar, but I'm not seeing anything standout. I'm not adverse to the content per se, but it (a) needs a better name and (b) needs a more solid secondary sources.  Stuartyeates (talk) 03:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The chants are almost uniformly about raping or sexually assaulting women 24.85.234.209 (talk) 04:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep - The place for an article that is just barely within general notability is article space, where it is more likely to be improved than in draft space. I usually agree with deletion of articles that were moved back to article space after draftification, but in this case, the article is within GNG and can be improved in article space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:13, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Draftify to see if it has potential down the line. As is, I don't think GNG is met, and I agree with Chris that significant coverage would need to be scholarly to give the required depth of coverage needed (let alone to make an actually decent article.) Otherwise, this feels like it cannot exist outside of a larger topic, such as rape culture. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 20:32, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Comment 2 Here's a final source that's academic. Anderson, Lyndsay, and Marnina Gonick. "The Saint Mary’s Rape Chant: A Discourse Analysis of Media Coverage." Girlhood Studies, vol. 14, no. 1, 2021, pp. 52-67. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/saint-mary-s-rape-chant/docview/2494215632/se-2, doi:https://doi.org/10.3167/ghs.2021.140106. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sleuthman (talk • contribs) 08:29, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - This article can be improved based on sources that exist. I've downloaded multiple articles from academic journals via Google Scholar, but honestly, after going through about half of them, I simply do not have the stomach to deal with this subject as it is extremely triggering. While I do think the article should be kept, I do not want to argue the point. The article should NOT be deleted because Rape Chant it is indeed a real phenomenon that has been analyzed. It meets WP:GNG. I very seldom respond to Wikipedia matters emotionally, but come on guys, this is a real thing not just a neologism. And it is certainly not equivalent to a "Hole in One" - a very unfortunate choice of wording for an analogy. I also think it's strange that the article creator was called "embittered" whether or not they are a SPA, and I think that comment should be struck since I'm not finding anything in their contributions to indicate embitterment. Please assume good faith of the article creator. Netherzone (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. The sources provided in this AFD seem to indicate that GNG is met, so the article should be kept per WP:NEXIST. Total understandable why the article is underdeveloped compared to the available sourcing, given the subject matter. Patar knight - chat/contributions 08:47, 7 February 2023 (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.