Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heteropatriarchy (3rd nomination)

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 no consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:37, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Heteropatriarchy[edit]

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

Lacks stand-alone notability. Probably better off as a sub-section of a broader article. TheDracologist (talk) 21:35, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is one of a series of ill-considered AfDs by new editor User:TheDracologist.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Patriarchy#Feminist theory of which this is at best a subtopic. Some of the text and sources can be merged there. Note tht recent AfD closed as no consensus.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NEO and/or WP:OR. South Nashua (talk) 02:01, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is enough evidence to keep it as a separate article. Otherwise it would lose part of its meaning. DaddyCell (talk) 13:30, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: it is very significant that an heteropatriarchal institution such as Wikipedia, mostly formed by cisgender, heterosexual males is voting for the third time the deletion of the article that explains this situation. DaddyCell (talk) 14:16, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: One could also argue that the fact this article exists after an AfD resulted in a consensus to delete it is evidence of feminist bias among administrators. Things always look different depending on what lens you look at it through. I don't believe there's a bias on Wikipedia one way or the other, but the subject of this article seems to be a fringe theory that lacks the notability to warrant its own article. TheDracologist (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or, if not, then redirect - per last three discussions, and DGG's comments in the 2nd one. There's plenty of evidence the term exists, but not yet that it has been used widely in secondary sources. This is also a mere content fork of patriarchy, since heterosexuality and patriarchy are, in many scholars' and laypersons' minds, conjoined. FWIW, I am a feminist, cis, gay man. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Looking around, I see increasing usage, including the American Spectator, of all places. I had thought it meant to imply the possibility of a patriarchal society that wasn't heteropatriarchal . But apparently it is used in order to emphasise both the patriarchial and the heterodominent aspects of conventional society. (Heterodominent is a real concept also, and I suppose we need an article). DGG ( talk ) 16:49, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. : It is a legitimate concept and has adequate sourcing. Montanabw^(talk) 07:38, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and valid concept, article is also very well sourced. ThatGirlTayler (talk) 23:57, 25 March 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.