Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The NeuroGenderings Network: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 01:25, 27 October 2018

The NeuroGenderings Network

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

(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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@XOR'easter:Is the existence of a conference for which the notability of its contents is not well established sufficient to consider it encyclopedic? Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four international conferences, held every four years - Sweden (2010); Vienna (2012); Switzerland (2014); and the US (2016). Are you now arguing that this article should go because it is not notable, that would contradict your opening post? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist: Again I ask: Does the existence of a conference when its impact cannot be determined to be notable make it encyclopedic? There are many academic conferences held all the time that are suspect see Predatory open-access publishing. If the topics in question had more peer review I would consider it notable, but as the primary discussed topics Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, seem to only redirect to this article, I find this dubious.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several academic sources discussing this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On google scholar there are only a total of 81, mostly primary sources dealing with the keyword neurogenderings, there are more for neurosexiam and neurofeminism, but that has nothing to do with the existence or relevance of this conference. If you believe neurosexism and neurofeminism to be encyclopedic, by all means to create articles about them and remove the redirects to this page, but that does not result in this conference being encyclopedic.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Please observe WP:DISCUSSAFD "How to contribute" When participating, please consider the following: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.

In any case, has your rationale for deletion changed again? Is it now on the grounds of primary sources? If so then out of 22 refs there is only one (the list of members) from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the primary source) in the entire article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take your meaning, there are many reasons why this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Most crucially that WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6,7 WP:NOTJOURNAL#9 and WP:PRESSRELEASE WP:SOAP. It may be possible that Neurofeminism and Neurosexism have a place on the encyclopedia, but right now the relevance of this group to any particular topic is difficult to establish. Instead of deletion, perhaps it should be moved into draft space until the requisite articles on the topics in question have been created.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 23: / Line 23: @@
 ::Please observe [[WP:DISCUSSAFD]] "'''How to contribute'''" {{tq|When participating, please consider the following: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.}}
 ::In any case, has your rationale for deletion changed again? Is it now on the grounds of primary sources? If so then out of 22 refs there is only one ([https://neurogenderings.wordpress.com/members-2/ the list of members]) from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the primary source) in the entire article. --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist]] ([[User talk:The Vintage Feminist|talk]]) 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
+:::I don't take your meaning, there are many reasons why this article does not belong in an encyclopedia.  Most crucially that [[WP:NOTDIRECTORY]]#6,7 [[WP:NOTJOURNAL]]#9 and [[WP:PRESSRELEASE]][[WP:SOAP]].  It may be possible that [[Neurofeminism]] and [[Neurosexism]] have a place on the encyclopedia, but right now the relevance of this group to any particular topic is difficult to establish.  Instead of deletion, perhaps it should be moved into draft space until the requisite articles on the topics in question have been created.[[User:Ethanpet113|Ethanpet113]] ([[User talk:Ethanpet113|talk]]) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)