Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White-supremacist capitalist patriarchy


 * 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   delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

White-supremacist capitalist patriarchy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)


 * Keep. bell hooks specifically coined this phrase as a way of talking about the intersections between all of these systems of oppression, although it is important to address patriarchy, white-supremacy and capitalism individually, it is critical for us to have the language and understanding on how these individual systems affect us on multiple levels.  bell hooks talks about this a great deal in her work and this article could easily be edited to add her more detailed analysis. Seedling (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete . We have articles on white supremacy, capitalism, and patriarchy. There's no evidence presented that this phrase is something other than an amalgam of what can be found on those three articles. Nor is there evidence that hooks' usage is particularly notable outside a small realm. csloat (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)  Change to merge with bell hooks article, unless someone can present evidence of this phrase being used by other scholars to mean something other than the sum of its parts. csloat (talk) 23:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete nothing past Hooks claims/references. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep – Though the term seems to go hand and hand with bell hooks, I believe it has generated enough interest and use as shown here to warrant a stand alone piece at this time.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 21:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Change title to White-supremacist capitalist homophobic agist large-environmental-footprint militarist patriarchy, although I get a nagging feeling that this doesn't even cover it. -- Noroton (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete doesn't pass WP:N -- not enough substantial, in-depth coverage of the concept in sources other than its mother, bell hooks. -- Noroton (talk) 22:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Even though it is cited well over a 100 times, as shown here, in Google Scholar ? Thanks ShoesssS Talk 22:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Though google hits alone don't establish notability, I actually find the google scholar argument persuasive. Are there any third-party scholars commenting on what this phrase means other than what the individual words mean? csloat (talk) 23:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I believe if you look at the very first reference, Making Sense of Women's Lives, does not define what the individual words represent, but discusses "... what this phrase means", and is cited 25 times.  Thanks.  ShoesssS Talk 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)  (PS: by the way I agree totally with your Google hits remarks.  If that was the case ShoesssS Talk would have his own article.  I look for in-depth - reliable - CREDTABLE - third party sources before expressing a delete or keep opinion). ShoesssS Talk 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw nothing in Making Sense of Women's Lives other than the author's unsubstantiated opinions (assertions, not argument based on logic or facts), and amid that, only a throwaway use of the phrase, not a discussion of the concept referring to bell hooks and exactly what bell hooks means by it. There are other phrases and even concepts used in opinion journalism (which is the kind of writing in Making Sense) that get plenty of repetition, but without the in-depth treatment that justifies an encyclopedia article (Drive-by media, Club Gitmo -- which redirect to Jargon of The Rush Limbaugh Show; there may be a way to salvage all or some of this by merging it into a similar article or even section of some other article; Feminazi has its own article, which should be deleted for the same reason I've given here -- no in-depth coverage in reliable sources is shown, so if anyone nominates it for deletion, tell me and I'll vote to delete). Although it's not necessary to the decision here, there's an obvious possible POV motivation to include anything in the encyclopedia related to points of view on politics or religion, and we really should be skeptical until the proof is solid. If in-depth coverage of the idea can be shown, I'll change to Keep. -- Noroton (talk) 14:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as the article is WP:NN. Lithorien (talk) 23:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or merge Per WP:NN Soxwon (talk) 05:28, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per csloat's reasoning. Capitalismojo (talk) 00:15, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete I don't believe that this phrase is sufficiently well-assocaiated with bell hooks to make a redirect appropriate. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:32, 24 August 2009 (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.