Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomboy


 * 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 speedy keep. WP:SNOW, WP:NOTCLEANUP; this is a level 5 vital article with only two delete votes— the nom (who grossly misapplies all cited policies and guidelines) and one other whose argument is entirely a personal fringe POV that doesn’t even make sense as a deletion reason (“it doesn’t exist any more, delete it”?). (non-admin closure) Dronebogus (talk) 10:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

Tomboy

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

Nominating this article iaw WP:NOTDICTIONARY, WP:COATRACK and WP:EXPLODE. The article contains a significant quantity of original research (I removed it, and then reverted the removal prior to nominating it here). The encyclopaedic material belongs elsewhere in Wikipedia, not crammed into this article. Wiktionary has a good article about the word "Tomboy"[]. There may be scope for an article about The Tomboy in feminism - but this isn't it, so WP:EXPLODE applies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Springnuts (talk) 18:15, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. This term is a remnant from earlier history. I'm sure that every girl born after 1930 is a tomboy to some extent; "not a tomboy" is absolute and doesn't fit any girl born after 1930. I know only one girl who isn't a tomboy in any way; she's a fairy tale character. I have a hint on her name; it has 2 words; the first word is something that occurs up north in January but rarely occurs in Florida; the second is a color. Can you guess her name?? Georgia guy (talk) 18:38, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That has absolutely nothing to do with if this article should be kept or not. There are a lot of things that stopped existing prior to 1930 which still have articles on Wikipedia. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I was intending my !vote to be interpreted as meaning that this classification is not as natural today as it was traditionally. Georgia guy (talk) 21:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. Dictionary definitions are simply definitions of words. This is an article about a concept, and one that has received plenty of coverage (there have been several books written about it, for example), and as such is a perfectly good topic for an encylopedia article, irrespective of any flaws that may currently exist. --Michig (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep.Although I agree to keep it, I prefer that there is a generalized review of the entire content, as there is a range of fragments in which partial discourse and militancy are perpetuated, which is not characteristic of an encyclopedic article. Therefore, as an encyclopedic article, the page should focus on history, and only on it, because the section related to history is really very impoverished, especially when it comes to Hatshepsut and Joan of Arc who could very well be inserted in this article in return for dictionary shortcomings and militancy, I think there should be a Wiktionary article on the term and a separate page on the Tomboys' relationship to modern media for the LGBT+/feminist crowd to enjoy. In addition, the idea of "Tomboy" is not limited to the literature and has existed since antiquity. Therefore, I am in favor of creating the The Tomboy in feminism article and reformulating the present article.--The Young Prussian (talk) 20:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree entirely on the expansion of the history section generally and also specifically with relation to Joan D'Arc.  JC  aka JtheKid15(Communications) 20:50, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep - The word has more than enough reliable sources to show notability as a term and as a concept. Yes, the article does contain a lot of unsourced content which is likely OR. Deletion is not cleanup and nothing here seems drastic enough to justify WP:TNT. Grayfell (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep per all above. It's clearly notable topic. Article needs to be improved and copyedited, not deleted. I really enjoy yuri manga about tomboys, so I may be not impartial here. a! rado🦈 (C✙T) 21:18, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, but trim some of the over-the-top language peppered throughout the article. For example, in the lede, the statement that a tomboy "fails to uphold their allegiance" to femininity, what does that even mean? BD2412  T 04:02, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. This article needs serious cleanup as it is insufficiently sourced and some of the text appears to be non-neutral in terms of its presentation of gender stereotypes. But the concept of "tomboy" is notable as a concept. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. It makes no sense to delete an article on a clearly notable concept (not just a term) simply because the article needs improvement. It makes even less sense to start improving the article and then add original research back in just so it looks more delete-able. --Equivamp - talk 12:06, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep. The only delete reasons give seem more personal and political in nature, not in accordance to Wikipedia guidelines. 2A02:8108:2C3F:AC2C:50EE:186D:DBB:626D (talk) 19:37, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The article certainly needs some work, but I reject that the topic amounts to dictionary definition. Tomboy is a mode of female social behaviour with half a millennium of documented history. The article's coverage of this form of female gendered behaviour isn't coat-racking, it's addressing the topic directly. SFB 18:18, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep As above, article needs some serious work and improvement but to me clearly stands above any classic example of a dictionary definition. The concept of 'Tomboy' itself is a notable and important part of, for example, the LGBT+ community which explores in depth the concepts of gender stereotypes and their relation to and affect on identity.   JC  aka JtheKid15(Communications) 20:48, 10 November 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.