Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network

The NeuroGenderings Network

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

The NeuroGenderings Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is about an organization, which studies a neologism for which there there is no consensus on terminology or definition. It uses words such as "neurosexism" and "neurofeminism" though these do not appear in the common lexicon and do not appear prevalent in related literature. it does not define them or provide links to corresponding wikipedia articles which do define them. This suggests the theories are fringe and do not meet Wikipedia's general criteria for inclusion of academic,organizations and topics. Ethanpet113 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep As the creator of the article I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. The OP has opened an AfD on The NeuroGenderings Network but has then argued a case against 2 redirects.

• Neurosexism already existed as a redirect to the "contents" section of Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender diff, I think this is a better place for it.
• Neurofeminism is indeed a neologism based a paper by Sigrid Schmitz and Grit Höppner Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research, it does not warrant its own article, it does not have its own article, it's a redirect with no other links - just in case anyone specifically looks up "Neurofeminism".

The OP previously added the following templates to this article: COI, Confusing, Context, Hoax, Notability, Primary sources, keep going Recentism and Self-published - there were no corresponding talk messages to any of them diff. Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, there was an WP:A7 PROD (diff) as well! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• Keep There were more references available about the conferences and the organization than I had expected. I'm satisfied that notability is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Keep. There are several academic sources discussing this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• Delete Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, redirect to this article, which is about a conference or organization,not the topics, so they are not adequate to establish notability if you believe the conference or organization meet wikipedia's criteria of notability for inclusion, then it logically follows that it must be about the genesis of these topics. If the topics are indeed notable, please establish the topics as separate articles articles, for which some secondary sources may be found. Right now as it stand the article appears to be about a one time event, and the majority of the citations are primary sources.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)