Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femisplaining

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. Kurykh (talk) 00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Femisplaining[edit]

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

Per WP:DEL5 and WP:DEL6 as well as WP:GNG. This appears to be a fork of a neologism that is not supported by reliable sources. The sources in the article, save one, appear unreliable. There's no indication this term or idea is widely reported on, used, or accepted. Rather, it appears to be a backlash to mansplaining and, if so, would belong as a section on that page. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (preferably) or Merge into mansplaining, per EvergreenFir. This is a POV content fork, and the sourcing is atrocious. (I did get more hits using the spelling "Femsplaining", however.) Funcrunch (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a real thing. Artw (talk)
Delete for the reason that White History Month is just a redirect and not an article. A satirical criticism of a thing is not, in itself, a thing. Unless strongly supported by reliable source, of course, but this is a minor neologism of alt-right blogs and news outlets. TheValeyard (talk) 04:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a neologism that doesn't meet the GNG. A redirect is possible, to Mansplaining, but I'd prefer Delete. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I must question the double standards displayed here. How Mansplaining is a legit page, despite the fact that on it's wikipedia page it states it's a "neologism". Furthermore, mansplaining's usage is satirical as it's only used by journalists and those that published books... In other words, those that are heavily opinionated. I deliberately made the article in a similar style to the mansplaining one for the exact reason that I believed that it wasn't a far cry for someone to take the article in the wrong way. Also, I feel that the opinions above (and the one below) are outdated as the article has had a major updated since. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your sources are terrible, and still seek to take a minor, unknown neologism and make t into a thing. This is a lesson for the 21st-century Wikipedia editor; just because someone tweets about a thing or blogs about a thing, doesn't make the thing notable. My call to delete is hereby affirmed. TheValeyard (talk) 13:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was founded on the same principles as mansplaining. Just because the author of a book or a few people blog about it, doesn't make it notable. Thereby your call is not affirmed, but instead is rather hypocritical. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Mansplaining article has 39 sources and gives hundreds of results if you search for it. Your article doesn't give enough results to meet the requirements of the General Notability Guideline so it doesn't qualify for inclusion. It really is that simple, so cries of "hypocrite" are going to fall on deaf ears. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

at least you actually validated your argument with something constructive. Searching Womansplaining does return hundreds of results as well. Perhaps it's too late to go back and change the title from "femisplaining" to "womansplaining" as that would seem to be the core issue of this article. Unfortunately, I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that, or even if it is possible. Regarding references, I'm slowly working on updating the article when and where I can. Unfortunately, as a university student, it can be difficult to put the time and effort into these things. Which I suppose begs the question as to why I created the article in the first place. Simply put, I'm pointing out a hypocrisy in society, whereby words against men seem to go viral, while those that are against women seem to fall short and disappear, which is a clear sign that there's a problem in society. In removing the article, wikipedia would be adding fuel to the fire and becoming part of the problem. I guess I was interested as to how bad the problem was. As for general notability, Womansplaining does fall aptly into that category. As I said before there is a lot of information on the subject if you would take the time to look, but again, I suspect it's a problem with the main title which you are referring to. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not the place to point out society's flaws - Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles based purely on what appears in reliable, independent sources. Yes, this can mean that Wikipedia reflects some sort of systemic bias that may exist within the wider world, but that's not the fault of Wikipedia's editors and it is not our place to put our own spin on things. I recently !voted "keep" for an article about someone who I wouldn't spit on if they were on fire - our personal opinions are not meant to be apparent from our editing, so take a step back and have a thorough, dispassionate read through of your article. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be greatly appreciated if you could point out the downfalls of the article. I understand that there is a need to point out flaws generally in an article, but it's not helpful to those who need specifics in order to improve it. I personally feel like it's the equivalent of saying "look out!" and then not pointing out where the danger is. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's been pointed out repeatedly - the main issue is notability, and it's one that you're not going to be able to fix because I've looked and the sources just aren't out there. The General Notability Guideline is quite clear about the level of coverage that is an essential requirement and that coverage simply does not exist. No amount of discussion can magically change that situation. The other issue that I flagged up was the lack of a neutral point of view, because your personal views are immediately obvious to anyone who reads the article. That issue requires such an extensive rewrite that I'm not sure it'd be worth your time to do it, especially because the article may not survive this discussion. Exemplo347 (talk) 14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing will be fixed with an attitude like that. The articles are out there for Womansplaining, not so much for femisplaining as it's often mixed up with the former, but as I mentioned before, I clearly made a mistake with regards to making Femisplaining the main topic instead of womensplaining. Apparently, there is a way to change the title of a piece by moving the article. Although, given that this topic is clearly too controversial, it makes me wonder if it's even worth the effort, especially given how unhelpful the criticism has been thus far. I appreciate you're trying to help and that it's probably quite irritating watching this progress/regress the way it has, but the criticism given thus far has been of no use whatsoever. SU-35s Super Flanker (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A title change would be like rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Mansplaining is a notable topic, as evidenced by the number of quality sources that meet the Wikipedia guidelines for what is a good, reliable source. You approached this topic with a "well if that exists then this must exist too to balance it!". The problem there is that the "this", i.e. woman/femisplaining, does not exist as a thing outside of alt-right blogs and twitter feeds, or the occasional passing mention in a real source ridiculing the attempts by the alt-right to make woman/femisplaining into a thing. TheValeyard (talk) 16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, poorly sourced neologism with no notability. Not sufficient sources to redirect, either. --bonadea contributions talk 11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Available sources don't treat this as an actual thing. The cite to "Urbandictionary user Quackers McKnightington" is prima facie evidence that this should be deleted with all due haste. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a "stop making fetch happen" situation. Poor to intolerable sourcing, a word that makes no sense whatsoever coined by a YouTuber, and hardly meets WP:GNG at all. Nate • (chatter) 00:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Neologism with no evidence of notability, Obvious attempt to Right Great Wrongs is obvious. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MADEUP, WP:NEO, WP:RS, WP:NOTINHERITED, and WP:NOTNEWS. Articles are not for things made up one day in an angry spat of satire and/or Adlerian spite. We don't have articles for neologisms, per se, because they are almost always original research, as in this case, which we don't publish. I can't see any reliable sources either on the page or online; as NorthBySouthBaranof, TheValeyard, and Mrschimpf have noted above. Just because mansplaining is notable does not infer than womansplaining is as well. We also don't publish mere news in an encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 14:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass GNG, my searches did not find any reliable sources describing this term. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 21:28, 6 May 2017 (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.