Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vagina envy (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. WjBscribe 03:34, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Vagina envy (2nd nomination)

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is pretty much unsourced and has been so since Sep 2006. It is mostly a collection of fact tags. Nothing to suggest this is a particularly recognised psychological phenomenon and it does not appear to have been written about. Of the two links given in the "references section", one is a very dubious website of no real standing and the other links to a journal article on the subject. That article seems to be the only academic discusison of the subject. We should not have articles simply a paper suggested it once. This is non-notable and seems only to exist out of a misguided attempt to add balance to our coverage of penis envy (a term of clear historical significance in Freudian psychlogy).

Note previous AfD in November, the result of which was keep. WjBscribe 03:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. A recognised and discussed phenomenon in psychology, especially psychoanalysis, for almost have a century. Someone can plug the term into google scholar, read a couple of articles and reference the entry properly. Recurring dreams 04:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep Already found two more scholarly psychoanalytic articles using the term in their abstracts, and included the key sentences in the refs. . (using the interdisciplinary database Scopus) I think this is enough to support the article. Will be necessary to integrate into article, but that's a detail. DGG 04:18, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom Bulldog123 10:31, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge into penis envy. There's very little to be said about this topic and it's not likely to progress much beyond its current state.  Conceptually it is very similar to penis envy, and it seems to have been invented mainly as a counterpoint to penis envy.  Additionally there exists a short article on womb envy that is a very similar topic, that is a potential merge target.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep Merger with Penis envy makes no sense. The article now has three references wherein the topic has received substantial coverage in refereed scientific journals, satisfying WP:A and WP:N. There is clearly room for improvement by rewriting the present stub to incorporate more content from the sources cited as DGG said. Edison 17:04, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep per Edison; the article does seem to satisfy WP:A and WP:N (although not by too much yet). I agree that the article just needs an expansion. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Actions • Words))) 17:48, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Merge per Arkyan's comments. --oac (old american century) | Talk 21:28, 14 May 2007 (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.