Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Resting bitch face


 * 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. There is consensus that this article meets notability. The quality of an article is a WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Any merge discussion can take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) SST flyer 05:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Resting bitch face

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This is not a memopedia. As for the purported literary references:


 * 'Texas Women's University academic Rene Paulson stated that those with resting bitch face have a stronger sense of self-awareness and a better ability to communicate'
 * Cited to an op-ed in Quartz referencing a 1960s study. Yes, really.
 * 'whilst New York University psychologist Jonathan Freeman carried out a study showing that slightly angry facial expressions make other people think you are untrustworthy'
 * The NYU study makes no reference to BRF.
 * 'In 2016, two researchers reported that a computer analysis using Noldus’s FaceReader indicated that celebrities previously described as exhibiting RBF showed a significantly higher level of contempt on the faces.'
 * What I've gathered has actually happened here is a bunch of big-data folk tagged facial expressions for a range of emotions, which included contempt but not BRF, trained their software on a larger dataset, then fed specific BRF images to it. 'Contempt' is no less and no more perceptual than BRF-ness.  This isn't science; it's a waste of everybody's time. Izkala (talk) 00:39, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Sad to say, but the phrase has gained wide popularity and is used substantially in reliable sources with 36K hits on Google news.Meatsgains (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:53, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Zero improvement found compared to the first nomination for this topic under another title; I don't care if JAMA has a four-year study on this condition ready to go in the future, this relies mainly on junk science about the condition and mainly observational stories about the topic which are under different scientific terms, and the rest are still sourced to fluff tabloid garbage, a 'sigh, this term exists' mention in the New York Times, a joke YouTube video and listicles like the last nom. There should be no pictures posted in this article as this is a WP:BLP nightmare if a rep for a figure mentioned in it finds out about it. It's no wonder with articles like this our feminist renown definitely isn't high by any means.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed that there should not be any images included on the page. Studies and science on the condition aside, the "term" is now even being used by reporters. Its use is a controversial societal issue. Meatsgains (talk) 02:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment It seems well-sourced but maybe there's a better term for the more substantial phenomenon behind the term? --Mr. Magoo (talk) 03:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Facial expression. Not enough to have a standalone article.-- Auric    talk  14:32, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article cites an abundance of sources that substantiate notability. Any disputes about the article's contents (or whether it should be merged elsewhere) can be carried out at the article's talk page. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep Sadly, this is very notable. It's stupid, but meets WP:GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep This topic is notable, there are articles in good sources (e.g., The Washington Post), and while some folks may object to the term, that's not enough of a reason to delete. RossPatterson (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or redirect to facial expression. Per WP:NEOLOGISM.  Also, this is the sexist trolling that give Wikipedia a bad image.
 * Comment: It should be noted that the word "bitch" is not nearly as offensive in other English-speaking countries such as Australia. Also, it is not necessarily a "sexist" term, since it has Kanye West as a poster boy. Finally, it should be remembered that the article is not about the phrase, but the concept - and the concept may be described under another name, or no name at all. StAnselm (talk) 02:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Facial expression. A good deal of this article from research that doesn't itself mention resting bitch face (a term which was added when the research was discussed in popular media). I'm not opposed to mentioning the term at Facial expression and having a section on it, but I see no reason to split this off of the broader concept. It is notable, but that doesn't mean it's an appropriate fork. ~ RobTalk 02:33, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The two journal articles aren't concerned with BRF and may or may not be appropriate for inclusion in an article with as broad a scope as facial expression. Is this a tactical vote?  Izkala (talk) 08:59, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I seem to have misinterpreted your first point. Izkala (talk) 09:11, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep: This is definitely a reasonable search term. CNN and the Washington Post have articles using this term. Whether "resting bitch face" is a separate article or is changed to be a redirect to another article such as facial expression is outside the scope of a deletion process. That conversation can be held on the article's talk page. --MZMcBride (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There actually is a merge discussion ongoing at the talk page, but this was nominated by an editor who appears to be unaware of that discussion. Actually,, you may want to take a look at that discussion given that they're similar. ~ RobTalk 04:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Redirect is a possible outcome at AfD but I see no article where it might be appropriate to redirect this to. As for the two articles in the press, they can be charitably described as clickbait.  Izkala (talk) 09:05, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Izkala. "Resting bitch face" is a type of facial expression. The article's lead sentence notes this and the page is categorized in Category:Facial expressions. How would redirecting this term to facial expression be inappropriate? (To be clear, I'm neither arguing nor advocating for a merge here, I'm just responding to the notion that there's nowhere on the English Wikipedia that the term "resting bitch face" could redirect to currently.) --MZMcBride (talk) 17:23, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The topic comfortably passes WP:GNG, and as such, qualifies for a standalone article. North America1000 18:47, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to facial expression. In 3 years nobody is going to remember this meme or care about the topic, and the article is short anyway. It can be included in the FE article without any loss of knowledge. White Arabian Filly  Neigh 21:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:NTEMP. North America1000 01:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:CFORK. Having multiple articles on highly similar concepts is not always recommended even when a specific term is independently notable. ~ RobTalk 01:59, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * See WP:SPINOFF: "there are two situations where spinoff subarticles become necessary, and, when done properly, they create the opportunity to go into much more detail than otherwise permissible...(1) Articles where individual sections create an undue weight problem, (2) Large summary style overview meta-articles which are composed of many summary sections". North America1000 02:15, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Which do you believe applies here? ~ RobTalk 02:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Spinoff. The article is easily expandable per the availability of sources about the topic. Merging would likely end up dumbing-down the topic to keep the text concise so that it does not create undue weight at the Facial expression article. However, this is an encyclopedia, so ample information should be provided. If anything, a short section should be included at the Facial expression article with a "main article" section hatnote linking to this article. North America1000 02:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge to facial expression. This is a WP:NEOLOGISM and a content fork.  No need for a separate article.  It is also a highly misogynistic concept used almost exclusively to demean women (though, apparently, also targets the occasional black male).   Montanabw (talk)  01:34, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi Montanabw. I'm confused by your last sentence. Even if everyone agreed that the term is highly misogynistic and used to demean women, how is that relevant to whether Wikipedia should document this concept? Wikipedia contains a lot of objectionable and offensive content (e.g., Female genital mutilation), but it does so to provide information and knowledge about the concepts. That's our purpose here. Wikipedia is not endorsing the these concepts by including them in our collection. A few commenters in this discussion and on the talk page seem to suggest that because the term is potentially misogynist or demeaning, it should not be included in Wikipedia. I don't follow this line of reasoning. --MZMcBride (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2016 (UTC)**
 * Huge difference between documenting real oppression (FGM) and glamorizing a neologism that is simply a new insult for women not smiling. There are a number of articles about similar insults (notably related to Obama) that have been merged or deleted (one less-insulting but more silly example was Michelle Obama's arms).   Montanabw (talk)  20:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Facial expression or Delete. This is a just a passing meme and does not warrant its own article. It's probably notable enough to be mentioned in Facial expression though. Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep – The term has well over 700 results from a Google Books search: those results will remain even if the term falls out of popular use (it has survived at least 3 years, and since about 2003 according to G Barret's 2013 NY Times piece (cited in this article). Google Scholar search gives 11 results (some appear genuinely scholarly, some not). Page stats for the article show it has been viewed 154149 times from 03/02/2016 - 02/05/2016 (averaging 1713 per day) so the article is plainly fulfilling a need. Mungefuddler123 (talk) 14:54, 3 May 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.