Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sur les femmes


 * 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. The editors were split between keeping and redirecting, with the arguments for keep more compelling. (non-admin closure)  Onel 5969  TT me 23:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Sur les femmes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable essay. Two of the three biographies of this author mention it in passing and the third not at all. Nothing obvious in google. See also https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Sur_les_femmes and https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sur_les_femmes PROD removed on the basis that this is interesting. Stuartyeates (talk) 19:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Redirect to Denis Diderot. This essay is just not covered in recent scholarly literature, see Google scholar. It is occasionally mentioned as a source (cited) for the view of women during the Enlightenment. However Anne Larsen does say in her book Writings by Pre-revolutionary French Women (2000) when discussing d'Epinay on page 510 (volume 2): Among the most spirited responses to Thomas's [ Antoine Léonard Thomas ] polemic were Diderot's well-known essay Sur les Femmes and d'Epinay's lesser known but equally pointed critique ... My question would be: "Well-known to whom?" The only discussions of the essay appear to be those two that are currently cited. Maybe some paper-based research will turn up more sourcing with substantive analysis.  If not, redirect. as failing WP:GNG. --Bejnar (talk) 23:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * re: well-known to whom? - to at least two professors, experts in the topic (and Diderot biographers). And that is enough for wikipedia purposes. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:51, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep - it is just plain false that the essay in "not covered in scholarly literature". This book calls in "well-known" and discusses it very extensively. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:46, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep: Seems to be a historically significant French essay; a precursor to many 20th century works on the 'female question', like Freud's work on hysteria. And, as noted above, it has been covered by recent scholarship in English. -Mohanbhan (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do wish you would look at Google Scholar and see how empty it is. --Bejnar (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Redirect I suppose if not keep because either way it will be saved from exact deletion. SwisterTwister   talk  06:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep, any work by Denis Diderot is notable and keepable - he was the Jimbo Wales of his day and was responsible for the first major collaborative encyclopedia. As a stand alone work, keep per the 'Keep' comments above, which show that the work is notable. This is a fairly well written and full Wikipedia article. A thought, Diderot and Wales could be shown on a postage stamp together. Randy Kryn 11:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * While some people believe that some topics have inherent notability by existing, the guideline says elsewise: No subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists: The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition. WP:N --Bejnar (talk) 08:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

talk
 * Keep. I searched my old college's database and found plenty of academic sourcing that heavily reference this work. It's been the focus of at least one journal article, which I've added in the "further reading" section. It also enjoys an extended mention in this book published through the Oxford University Press. The sources are out there, although they're predominantly in academic sources. However the coverage is varied enough and he's covered by multiple different writers enough to where this is independently notable outside of its author. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * This book (page 233 from the University of Chicago Press asserts that one of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's essays was a partial response to this essay as well. The essay itself is covered in more depth on pages 53 and 60-61, according to the index. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Also covered here and here in French. It also looks to be covered in pages 297-300 of this Indiana University Press book by Samia I. Spencer. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  12:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * So basically, here's the source count if we eliminate the sourcing that's from an autobiography: 7 sources. This includes the three essays in the "further reading" section and four that were added to the article. If we include the two sources from Wilson and Fellows, which appear to cover the work in depth, this brings it to 9 sources. This does not include the things that I mentioned here but did not add to the article, which would add at least three more sources. Twelve sources is more than enough to assert notability. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:01, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm going to ask for some help with the sourcing (fleshing out the article, reducing the reliance on the same two sources) from some of the applicable WikiProjects. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)  13:02, 16 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: a minor work in a class that Sainte-Beuve called Diderot's "petits chef-d'oeuvres". It has had some lasting impact as shown by the sources in the article (although they aren't brilliant, and there is a bit of stretching to borrow Diderot's name to support a thesis). All in all this is an article of encyclopedic interest. On-line sources in French for this kind of thing are thin. I suspect a good French library would turn up more. Vrac (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2015 (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.