Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse sexism (2nd nomination)


 * 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. ✗ plicit  23:47, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverse sexism
AfDs for this article:


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

This term and therefore page doesn't make sense. There's no such thing as 'Reverse sexism'. It should be deleted or redirect to 'Sexism', or at the very least, be renamed to 'discrimination against men'.

In the first nomination of this page back in 2004, most people were in favour of redirecting to sexism or 'Reverse Discrimination', though the latter is in the exact same situation as 'Reverse sexism', there's no such thing, it's just 'discrimination'. Regardless, the page doesn't redirect anywhere despite the last nominations consensus. NotIranian (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination, Politics,  and Sexuality and gender.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 14:37, 12 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Whether individual editors believe the concept exists or not, the concept is covered extensively in academia and other media. Mary Briody Mahowald wrote an article for the The American Journal of Bioethics titled "Reverse Sexism? Not to Worry" in 2001 (source here); I S Gorfinkel wrote an article for the National Library of Medicine titled "Reverse Sexism" in 1994 (source here); Eidah Hilo wrote an article for Fem Magazine titled "Reverse Racism and Reverse Sexism Don’t Exist" in 2014 - which proves the concept is discussed (source here); Gary Furlong wrote an article for Stanford University titled "Combat reverse sexism" in response to a piece published in the Aurora women's magazine, date unknown (source here); The View had a discussion on if it is reverse sexism for women to vote for Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election (source here); Meghan Trombly wrote an article for Strong Women Strong Girls titled "In True Backlash Fashion: The "Reverse Sexism" of Title IX" in 2012 (source here); the (long) list of sources continues. Simply not agreeing with a concept does not exempt an AfD nominator from doing a BEFORE. --Kbabej (talk) 16:59, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, (this was an edit-conflict with the above) nominator is missing the point. The term doesn't need to make sense or describe something that exists in order to deserve an article; we have articles on hoaxes and theories that have been disproven. If the phrase/concept is discussed in depth in a range of reliable sources, then an article can be written. Even the briefest of Google searches shows that it's been the subject of publication at a wide range of levels from academic to the popular press, by a wide range of authors. The following, for example, feature the term very strongly:  ; the following uses the term in a way indicating that it expects readers to be familiar with the concept: ; I got bored at this stage, there's loads of stuff out there. Elemimele (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the edit conflict! Those are the worst! --Kbabej (talk) 17:07, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kbabej and Elemimele. The coverage of the term/concept easily satisfies WP:GNG. As explained above, opinions about the legitimacy of the concept are irrelevant in regards to its notability. Sal2100 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It meets WP:GNG. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2022 (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.