Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Womyn

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 kept per WP:SNOW. Plenty of references around; a quick search of JSTOR reveals a couple dozen hits. Mackensen (talk) 19:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Womyn[edit]

Article has been tagged with the {{unverified}} and {{originalresearch}} tags since the begining of September and has received no attention with regard to the additon of sources citing usage or coinage of this neologism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional Comment Many voters have noted that there is widespread usage of the term. While that is certainly good evidence that the term exists as a neologism, it doesn't cite the social significance that the article contends. It is an excellent argument for a dictdef and that the term should be transwikied. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 18:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The traditional argument for deleting a neologism is "non-notable neologism." To me that implies if a neologism is notable -- ie. a word in widespread use, then merely being a neologism isn't a criteria for deletion. A dicdef of this word would be something like "an alternate spelling of the word women coined by feminists." Since there's obviously more to say about this topic than that (though I agree, it needs to be sourced and verified) I don't see how a transwiki could possibly work. Dina 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that the nominator of this Afd is the same user who put the OR and CITE tags on the article earlier this month diff. I realize that's doesn't dismiss the nom or anything, but I just wanted to point that out. Dina 21:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Utterly nothing wrong with that. --EngineerScotty 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the article is unverified and original research, this is a legitimate topic worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. --ScienceApologist 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - {{Unverified}} and {{originalresearch}} tags do not constitute an argument for deletion. KarlBunker 17:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How long do we wait? Surely there should be many references to cite if this is truly a notable neologism. -- Malber (talk • contribs) 17:52, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic isn't inherently unverifiable, a quick check reveals there are plenty academic papers to cite [1]. Article seems to need work, but that's not a reason to delete, as an article on this topic could concievably taken to featured article quality, with just a few determined editors. --W.marsh 17:53, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep -- Well known term with a substantial history, even if it's not (yet) known to Wikipedians. Atlant 17:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep It's a neologism, but it's one that's been around and in widespread use for at least 15 years (though some of that use is to mock feminists.) The article was created in 2002 and the term has been in use at least since I was in college in the early 90's. And by in use, I mean I read textbooks and essays using the term, not that we just yelled it around the dorms. Let's work on this to make it a great article, the sources are out there, but deletion doesn't seem an option to me. Also: over a million Ghits Dina 18:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per everyone. Danny Lilithborne 19:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for reasons above. Gazpacho 19:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is in the Oxford English Dictionary and I added a NY Times article as a reference discussing its introduction in the 1991 Random House Webster's College Dictionary as a nonsexist alternate spelling of "women." Herstory and waitperson were also introduced as alternatives to history and waiter. Is it ok to remove the OR tag and the Unverified tag now?Edison 22:22, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, EngineerScotty 18:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not enough time for a WP:SNOW close; and the accusation by the closing user that the nomination was in bad faith was out of order. No evidence for bad faith on the part of User:Malber that I can discern. FWIW, I'm in favor of keeping the article (though it needs cleaning up; a trip to the OED would be a good start); as I'm relisting the debate I will instead abstain.--EngineerScotty 18:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No valid argument has been presented why this article should be deleted. "How long do we wait?" (for references) isn't an argument for deletion, nor is saying that the article should be transwikied to a dictdef, since the article obviously deals with issues that go beyond what would be covered in a dictionary definition. Seems to me that a consensus was reached. KarlBunker 18:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep - The excuse for deletion has been taken care of with the NY Times article being cited. PT ^(s-s-s-s) 18:56, 26 September 2006 (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.