Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vexatious Vixens

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. SarahStierch (talk) 20:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Vexatious Vixens[edit]

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

WP:NOTESSAY Optimale ^Gu 18:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am not finding any evidence this is a widely used term in Canadian politics. And as a Canadian myself, I've never heard of it. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator states, this is an essay. The term is a neologism that has no apparent usage outside of this book, which, not surprisingly, is the only source given. Wikipedia is not the place to establish currency for a term. It needs to be notable before being written about in Wikipedia. freshacconci talktalk 01:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Freshacconci. If this were going to be any kind of article, it would be better placed somewhere like Sexism in Canadian politics or something like that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Single-source neologism, POV essay, non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable neologism. Carrite (talk) 04:16, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Single-source definition of a term which has no currency outside of that one source. I can sort of loosely see what the creator thought they were getting at, but they missed — Women in Canadian politics already covers the issue of sexist portrayals of women in politics far more objectively, and with far more variety of sources (including the very same book that this one references, albeit in a more genuinely encyclopedic fashion.) Bearcat (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2013 (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.