Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Feminist technoscience

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. → Call me Hahc21 05:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist technoscience[edit]

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

Article appears to be a feminist POV fork of various other articles. Talk page editors have noted serious contradictions in the article's content. Pokajanje|Talk 03:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - I thought this was just a April Fools joke, but this potentially violates WP:COPYVIO and is indeed a fork. Citation Needed | Talk 03:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: this is a real field of academic enquiry, as evidenced by searching various academic databases. There is an nascent acadmic journal devoted to it at http://technoscience.se/ . As to the current text of the article; all I would suggest is that editors endeavour to make more use of open access sources to allow independent verification. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The content of this page does not adhere to objectivity standards. The study of technology, the history thereof, as well as the effects on singular or multiple groups falls under the two categories of History of Science and Technoscience. As such, this falls under: 5. Content forks and/or 11. Categories representing overcategorization. Chriseras (talk) 07:27, 1 April 2014 (UTC) — Chriseras (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Feminism (48627 characters) and History of science (69220 characters) are both at the length in the larger end of the scale according to Wikipedia:Article_size; it seems to me an article on their intersection is not unreasonable. The Technoscience article appears to have issues of it's own. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article has numerous citation and notability problems. It is about a year old and has not been significantly improved in that entire time. Short of major improvements in sources, citations, neutrality and tone it should be deleted. --Lead holder (talk) 12:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, agree with Stuartyeates that subject has received coverage among multiple databases. Also, WP:AFDISNOTFORCLEANUP. — Cirt (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep The ideas may be bosh but there's a plain trail of works about it. Mangoe (talk) 13:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Feminist technoscience studies have existed since the 1980s. A quick search would have shown that this topic is amply covered in both academic journals and books (WP:BEFORE applies here). [1][2] There's even a journal, the International Journal of Feminist Technoscience, dedicated to the topic. Content-related concerns can be addressed through editing the article. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 16:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a ton of feminist writing about science and technology, and writers such as Wajcman and Haraway are cited across disciplines. My only concern is with the title: I have not seen the term "feminist technoscience" used much in academic literature, and I think that "Feminist views on technology" (by analogy with these articles) would be a far more appropriate title. Sandbergja (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've redirected Feminist views on technology to the disambiguation page Feminism and technology for the time being. The term "feminist technoscience" appears often in academic literature and encompasses a framework I think distinct from cyberfeminism, networked feminism, and other feminist views/interactions with technology. gobonobo ⁺ ^c 18:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; thanks for the clarification. Sandbergja (talk) 01:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable concept per sources brought above, passes WP:GNG. I would remind some of the commenters above that poor article quality is not a reason to delete; if an article has quality problems it has to be fixed, not deleted.--cyclopia ^speak! 11:52, 7 April 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.