409:
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.
330:. 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 Also, I feel that the opinions above (and the one below) are outdated as the article has had a major updated since.
477:
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.
462:
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.
428:
that's not the fault of
Knowledge (XXG)'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.
442:
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!"
495:
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 Knowledge (XXG) guidelines for what is a good, reliable source. You approached this topic with a "well if that exists then this must
348:
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
Knowledge (XXG) 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.
476:
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.
496:
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.
427:
Knowledge (XXG) is not the place to point out society's flaws - Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia, with articles based purely on what appears in reliable, independent sources. Yes, this can mean that
Knowledge (XXG) reflects some sort of systemic bias that may exist within the wider world, but
461:
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
408:
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.
209:. 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
289:
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.
367:
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.
166:
735:
119:
715:
160:
695:
386:
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
572:
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
254:, per EvergreenFir. This is a POV content fork, and the sourcing is atrocious. (I did get more hits using the spelling "Femsplaining", however.)
126:
17:
92:
87:
96:
482:
448:
414:
373:
335:
79:
181:
560:
536:
148:
786:
551:- Available sources don't treat this as an actual thing. The cite to "Urbandictionary user Quackers McKnightington" is
390:
so it doesn't qualify for inclusion. It really is that simple, so cries of "hypocrite" are going to fall on deaf ears.
40:
763:
638:
658:
556:
478:
444:
410:
369:
331:
142:
657:, as in this case, which we don't publish. I can't see any reliable sources either on the page or online; as
767:
747:
727:
707:
686:
617:
600:
564:
543:
505:
486:
471:
452:
437:
418:
399:
377:
358:
339:
320:
299:
263:
237:
234:
138:
61:
286:
782:
501:
354:
295:
83:
36:
759:
467:
433:
395:
316:
210:
188:
642:
613:
591:
259:
174:
75:
67:
626:
743:
723:
703:
682:
608:
Neologism with no evidence of notability, Obvious attempt to Right Great Wrongs is obvious. --
539:
218:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
781:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
529:, poorly sourced neologism with no notability. Not sufficient sources to redirect, either. --
202:
198:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
662:
497:
350:
291:
57:
630:
573:
387:
206:
154:
463:
429:
391:
312:
654:
634:
758:
Does not pass GNG, my searches did not find any reliable sources describing this term.
666:
609:
579:
276:
255:
739:
719:
699:
678:
646:
531:
308:
251:
214:
113:
645:. Articles are not for things made up one day in an angry spat of satire and/or
53:
272:
307:
As a neologism that doesn't meet the GNG. A redirect is possible, to
775:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
677:
is as well. We also don't publish mere news in an encyclopedia.
736:
list of
Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions
555:
evidence that this should be deleted with all due haste.
109:
105:
101:
173:
217:
and, if so, would belong as a section on that page.
187:
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
789:). No further edits should be made to this page.
443:and then not pointing out where the danger is.
649:spite. We don't have articles for neologisms,
716:list of Language-related deletion discussions
8:
734:Note: This debate has been included in the
714:Note: This debate has been included in the
694:Note: This debate has been included in the
733:
713:
696:list of Women-related deletion discussions
693:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
24:
653:, because they are almost always
388:the General Notability Guideline
673:is notable does not infer than
669:have noted above. Just because
1:
806:
565:15:59, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
544:11:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
506:16:38, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
487:15:16, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
472:14:44, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
453:14:41, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
438:14:26, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
419:14:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
400:13:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
378:13:28, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
359:13:00, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
340:10:58, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
321:08:53, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
300:04:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
264:23:38, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
238:23:08, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
311:, but I'd prefer Delete.
778:Please do not modify it.
32:Please do not modify it.
768:21:28, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
748:02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
728:02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
708:02:59, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
687:14:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
618:23:25, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
601:00:07, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
62:00:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
479:SU-35s Super Flanker
445:SU-35s Super Flanker
411:SU-35s Super Flanker
370:SU-35s Super Flanker
332:SU-35s Super Flanker
285:for the reason that
659:NorthBySouthBaranof
557:NorthBySouthBaranof
287:White History Month
271:Not a real thing.
750:
730:
710:
655:original research
598:
542:
797:
780:
599:
594:
588:
587:
582:
535:
246:(preferably) or
231:
228:
225:
222:
192:
191:
177:
129:
117:
99:
34:
805:
804:
800:
799:
798:
796:
795:
794:
793:
787:deletion review
776:
760:Megalibrarygirl
639:WP:NOTINHERITED
592:
585:
580:
577:
229:
226:
223:
220:
134:
125:
90:
74:
71:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
803:
801:
792:
791:
771:
770:
752:
751:
731:
711:
690:
689:
675:womansplaining
620:
603:
567:
546:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
490:
489:
474:
456:
455:
440:
422:
421:
403:
402:
381:
380:
362:
361:
343:
342:
324:
323:
302:
280:
266:
195:
194:
131:
70:
65:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
802:
790:
788:
784:
779:
773:
772:
769:
765:
761:
757:
754:
753:
749:
745:
741:
737:
732:
729:
725:
721:
717:
712:
709:
705:
701:
697:
692:
691:
688:
684:
680:
676:
672:
668:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
644:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
621:
619:
615:
611:
607:
604:
602:
597:
595:
584:
583:
575:
571:
568:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
547:
545:
541:
538:
537:contributions
534:
533:
528:
525:
524:
507:
503:
499:
494:
493:
492:
491:
488:
484:
480:
475:
473:
469:
465:
460:
459:
458:
457:
454:
450:
446:
441:
439:
435:
431:
426:
425:
424:
423:
420:
416:
412:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
389:
385:
384:
383:
382:
379:
375:
371:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
356:
352:
347:
346:
345:
344:
341:
337:
333:
329:
326:
325:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
303:
301:
297:
293:
288:
284:
281:
278:
274:
270:
267:
265:
261:
257:
253:
249:
245:
242:
241:
240:
239:
236:
233:
232:
216:
212:
208:
204:
200:
190:
186:
183:
180:
176:
172:
168:
165:
162:
159:
156:
153:
150:
147:
144:
140:
137:
136:Find sources:
132:
128:
124:
121:
115:
111:
107:
103:
98:
94:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:Femisplaining
73:
72:
69:
68:Femisplaining
66:
64:
63:
59:
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
777:
774:
755:
674:
671:mansplaining
670:
650:
622:
605:
589:
578:
569:
552:
548:
530:
526:
327:
309:Mansplaining
304:
282:
268:
252:mansplaining
247:
243:
219:
215:mansplaining
196:
184:
178:
170:
163:
157:
151:
145:
135:
122:
49:
47:
31:
28:
663:TheValeyard
553:prima facie
498:TheValeyard
351:TheValeyard
292:TheValeyard
205:as well as
161:free images
643:WP:NOTNEWS
464:Exemplo347
430:Exemplo347
392:Exemplo347
313:Exemplo347
783:talk page
740:• Gene93k
720:• Gene93k
700:• Gene93k
667:Mrschimpf
627:WP:MADEUP
610:Guy Macon
256:Funcrunch
37:talk page
785:or in a
647:Adlerian
576:at all.
211:backlash
120:View log
39:or in a
679:Bearian
665:, and
606:Delete:
593:chatter
532:bonadea
203:WP:DEL6
199:WP:DEL5
167:WP refs
155:scholar
93:protect
88:history
756:Delete
651:per se
641:, and
631:WP:NEO
623:Delete
574:WP:GNG
570:Delete
549:Delete
527:Delete
305:Delete
283:Delete
269:Delete
244:Delete
235:(talk)
207:WP:GNG
139:Google
97:delete
54:Kurykh
50:delete
635:WP:RS
250:into
248:Merge
182:JSTOR
143:books
127:Stats
114:views
106:watch
102:links
16:<
764:talk
744:talk
724:talk
704:talk
683:talk
625:per
614:talk
581:Nate
561:talk
540:talk
502:talk
483:talk
468:talk
449:talk
434:talk
415:talk
396:talk
374:talk
355:talk
336:talk
328:Keep
317:talk
296:talk
277:talk
273:Artw
260:talk
201:and
197:Per
175:FENS
149:news
110:logs
84:talk
80:edit
58:talk
230:Fir
227:een
224:rgr
221:Eve
213:to
189:TWL
118:– (
52:.
766:)
746:)
738:.
726:)
718:.
706:)
698:.
685:)
661:,
637:,
633:,
629:,
616:)
563:)
504:)
485:)
470:)
451:)
436:)
417:)
398:)
376:)
357:)
338:)
319:)
298:)
262:)
169:)
112:|
108:|
104:|
100:|
95:|
91:|
86:|
82:|
60:)
762:(
742:(
722:(
702:(
681:(
612:(
596:)
590:(
586:•
559:(
500:(
481:(
466:(
447:(
432:(
413:(
394:(
372:(
353:(
334:(
315:(
294:(
279:)
275:(
258:(
193:)
185:·
179:·
171:·
164:·
158:·
152:·
146:·
141:(
133:(
130:)
123:·
116:)
78:(
56:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.