Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colonial/Modern Gender System

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. Randykitty (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Colonial/Modern Gender System[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially PRODed this as "coined by a non-notable person in a single article." I revise my strong position on the non-notability of Lugones to "possibly non-notable", as one would have to sort through the sources to see which ones discuss her and which ones just cite her or are by her, but this theory still appears only in her work (the other journal articles don't even cite her, much less discuss her theory). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regardless of the author, this is a neologism discussed by one person. A discussion of cultural constructions of gender should be at gender. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -It's a full article based on a neologism.Orasis (talk) 05:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Roscelese and Troutman and Orasis, okay, everybody up there, plus an additional problem is that it is essentially original research by one scholar, an Argentinian-born radical feminist, which would be permitted in Wikipedia if there were reliable secondary sources commenting on the theory, explaining it, arguing with or against it, but I did not find sufficient evidence of this happening. I did not find the term used in my numerous newspaper sweeps; I did find a source here which discusses her theory at length by another scholar named Alison Bailey. My searches without filters did not find much which was not written by Lugones. QED delete.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:40, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've tried another search and found more hits on the titular phrase, but this nonetheless seems to be a situation where we'd discuss her work in her own article and/or under something like colonialism or gender if appropriate. The middle ground of having an article on a theory created by one person does not seem to be borne out by its treatment in the sources. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:31, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.