Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muliebrity

Muliebrity

Lovely dicdef: Muliebrity is the state of being a woman. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:41, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• Info - This word appeared in Roget’s II: The New Thesaurus, Third Edition. (1995), as well as The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition. (2000). It appears to already have a Wiktionary entry Knoma Tsujmai 03:51, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to Gender role, its already in Wiktionary. (vote of Megan1967; changed below; <mikkalai>)
  • Keep and expand. I noted there is already an article on Virility which is the opposite of this term. Megan1967 04:01, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. This isn't the opposite of virility! Wel, it is, but most have never heard of it, unlike virility. Who's *actually* going to enter this as a keyword, AND get it spelled correctly, AND expect it to actually BE here??? Master Thief Garrett 04:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the opposite would be femininity. (from Latin, 'vir' = man, 'femina' = woman, 'mulieber' = not a word). Radiant_* 13:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
    • I hang my head in shame, I should have thought of that. I took five years of Latin and I can't even point out a simple word origin like that? Master Thief Garrett 23:19, 9 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Now you may hang the rest. A traditional opposite for feminine is masculine from "masculus". And those who know Spanish, will readily recall the word mujer <- mulier. Mikkalai 23:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Have you done a survey Mr Garrett? Redirects are cheap. Megan1967 05:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • There's a big difference between "cheap and useful" and "useless redirect", some are even of misspellings for goodness' sake... but, yes, you don't want to delete possible redirects or the inclusionists natives get restless... Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I wont buy into the inclusionist v's deletionist debates - redirects have nothing to with inclusionism, otherwise the vote would have been keep not redirect. Megan1967 07:17, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect, per Megan1967 (although I was tempted to say redirect to Francis the Talking Mule - get it? Mule... celebrity... -- BDAbramson ^thimk 04:56, 2005 May 7 (UTC)
• Question: Does this mean someone will add information about Muliebrity to the [Gender Role] page? Why redirect to a site that doesn't even contain the word? Knoma Tsujmai 05:16, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Don't redirect to a page which doesn't explain why the word is being redirected there. Delete. RickK 05:28, May 7, 2005 (UTC)
  • Good point, on the off-chance someone *does* search for it, then they should at least be rewarded for their efforts! Master Thief Garrett 05:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Neither this term nor Virility has anything to do with Gender roles. Whether this is a real word is not the criterion for Wikipedia. It's still a dicdef, and no one has yet argued it will ever be more, and redirecting it to a marginally related topic isn't that valuable.—Wahoofive (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to wiktionary, then delete. Dictionary definition that is unlikely to get anything more anytime soon. - Andre Engels 09:26, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and allow for organic growth. This is a notable concept in gender studies. Klonimus 17:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• delete. "being a woman" is womanhood. Mikkalai 20:24, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Is it hurting anyone taking up a few bytes on the servers? I know nothing about this topic and never heard the word before, but now I'm interested in wanting to know more. Hopefully, I will be able to return in a few months to see a complete article. -- Samuel Wantman 07:56, 8 May 2005 (UTC)
  • What, please tell me, will you expect to see here that is not already in femininity or similar? Master Thief Garrett 09:19, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Please keep it. Muliebrity is not quite the same thing as womanhood. The word is used in gender studies.

• Delete. Exploding Boy 23:07, May 8, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism. Would support a redirect to femininity if people really want, but this is just a misnomer. Radiant_* 13:04, May 9, 2005 (UTC)
  • It is a bad habit to vote without being informed within reasonable limits: femininity has no article yet. Mikkalai 00:46, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Everyking 00:30, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep -Lommer | ^talk 22:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. It's a neologism, and at best the article could be slimmed down and transferred to Wiktionary. I note that Mikkalai has added to woman an isolated sentence that links to this article and to femininity (despite the fact that, as he himself pointed out above, there's no article on the latter). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:19, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • You keep eyeing women! Yes, I did it, but this "isolated" sentence serves its purpose of introducing these terms irrelatively the existence of the articles. Also, making more links increases chances that someone willing to write will stumble onto them. And it is isolated because I have problems with knowing women. Mikkalai 16:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Also. I am curious why don't you scorn me for 4x expanding the article I am voting to delete? Mikkalai 16:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure that I understand all the above, but I can see little use introducing any of these terms, when one is simply a modification of the article title on normal English grammatical lines, one is a mere dictionary definition under VfD, and one is a redirect to an article linked to in the article's summary. As to expanding the article under VfD, why should I think that there's anything wrong with that? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:22, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep useful (216.191.154.61 did not sign off)
• Keep, and expand. A good start by Mikkalai. Leanne 05:33, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • It still does not change my opinion that it has to be deleted. I tried hard to find evidence in its defense (I am not a deletionist by nature), but found pitiful material. I put it into the article simply not to let my work wasted (Mel, that's what it was). All this may be safely moved anywhere where all "effimacies" may be discussed and meanings compared. Taken isolated, the article has little usefulness. Mikkalai 17:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• DELETE Pacian 07:56, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has been expanded, and is not a dicdef any more. Also, has sufficient Google hits not to count as a neologism nobody has ever heard of. -- AlexR 08:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's turned into a debate between "I've heard this in gender studies" and "I haven't heard it in non-related fields." If it exists in gender studies, you can't say it doesn't exist if you don't study it! Otherwise non-technical people would be voting computer/engineering terms out right and left, because they never heard of them. -- kronchev 4:48, 14 May 2005
  • Put it another way, what *exactly* does this word describe and mean that femininity doesn't? Are they synonymous or different? Master Thief Garrett 10:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
  • We don't live in 19th century. If it is important in gender studies, it most certainly must be discussed online. It is not. It is only used, rather chaotically. Mikkalai 17:34, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Useful gender studies concept. Expand. -- Aliceinlampyland 03:50, 15 May 2005 (GMT)
• Keep and expand. Useful topic. Iam 06:41, May 15, 2005 (UTC)
  • Why do't you "keepers-expanders" try to expand it yourselves, to see that this is impossible? Mikkalai 16:03, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
• Keep now that it has been expanded, and per the results found by AlexR. Jonathunder 18:49, 2005 May 15 (UTC)
• Keep expanded article. JamesBurns 07:13, 16 May 2005 (UTC)