Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Straw feminism


 * 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. Consensus is that the topic is notable. North America1000 03:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Straw feminism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

No different than a regular straw man fallacy, completely made up term with no significant history of usage. GutsKnucklebone (talk) 19:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment You've actually checked for sources? Jennifer Purvis, "Girls and Women Together in the Third Wave:Embracing the Challenges of Intergenerational Feminism(s)," NWSA Journal 16 (2004) discusses it. And, including "Straw feminist", I seeGScholar, GNews, GBooks. Doug Weller talk 21:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep - Sources published by reputable academic publishers have commented on the term, it's history, and its usage with more than superficial depth:    etc.  Grayfell (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Look at the discussion page on this article. I'm not the only one who takes issue with the fact that this term is absolutely no different than a regular straw man fallacy. Even if some feminists are using this term in place of straw man argument, it's still no different whatsover from a regular straw man and should be disregarded as "femspeak" that never caught on enough to deserve a wikipedia article. Or should I assume it's OK to write a Wikipedia article on every entry in urban dictionary? Condoning this kind of nonsense exposes the complete lack of NPOV on the subject matter. The article itself reeks of bias. -Guts Knucklebone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:FD47:385E:EDE5:A960 (talk) 01:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A Google scholar search tailored to eliminate some false positives nevertheless found 72 hits dating back nearly 20 years. That's well above my threshold for a keep on an academic topic, and I think the recent coverage in more-popular media is enough for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:51, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow Keep -- here's a random pick from Google books results (conveniently provided up top): Popular Culture, Political Economy and the Death of Feminism. Clearly passes GNG. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep In fact this should be closed as a snow keep, we've got a new editor who doesn't like the idea itself and who almost certainly doesn't know about notability. Doug Weller  talk 10:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I denied a speedy deletion request of this article from the person who started the AfD, recommending they begin an AfD if they felt that strongly about it. I'm glad the editor took the advice of myself and GB Fan, as it will put the issue to rest. I denied the speedy because a quick search found several reliable sources showing usage of the term. That, with the sources provided in this AfD show a clear path to keep. WP:GNG is clearly satisfied. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I just looked for all this alleged notability and found the same definition repeated over and over on a lot of those "72 hits dating back 20 years." This is nothing more than different sites grabbing content off one another in order to to get traffic. It does not suggest any significant usage of this term. Furthermore I have been involved in the feminism debate a long time and no one is using this term, except maybe a few radicals on tumblr who like making up their own language. Whoever wrote the article listed in the source is probably the same person who wrote the entry. In any case, the fact that it's no different than a regular straw man fallacy should be enough to get it deleted. If entering the term gets someone redirected to the strawman fallacy article that would be far more appropriate than allowing feminist wordsmiths to get away with making Wikipedia entries for their word creations, which are most likely intended to direct traffic to their blogs anyway. I have no issue issue with the subject of feminism being written about objectively on Wikipedia. I am not someone who would try to get an article taken down because I disagree with the ideology it describes. What I do object to is those who espouse such ideologies using a supposedly neutral forum to spread their cult nonsense. -Guts Knucklebone — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:602:9200:D800:FD47:385E:EDE5:A960 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Snow keep - WP:WORDISSUBJECT with a heavy dose of WP:JDLI. De Guerre (talk) 03:01, 11 November 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.