Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clitoris envy

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. I count 11 delete, 3 keep, 2 redirect. Rhobite 07:04, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Clitoris envy

This seems like nonsense. No clinical or psychological links on Google as far as I could see, just non-serious or joke usages. Dysprosia 05:23, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Penis envy is bullshit, but at least its encyclopedic bullshit. This is revenge bullshit. I got 1 google hit with "clitoris envy" and the author's name. -R. fiend 05:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Comment hmmmmm I get 284 Google hits with "Clitoris envy" (mostly that old Michael Jackson joke). Apparently there is a book by M. Shaalan, called Clitoris Envy: A Psychodynamic Construct Instrumental in Female Circumcision published by WHO. I would vote a tentative Keep but with a major rewrite, with that book. Megan1967 05:46, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • The title of that book got me 2 google hits. Getting better... -R. fiend 06:37, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • LOL. Our medical research library has a copy. Although at this stage it's not looking too good to save this article. Might end up voting for a redirect to Female circumcision. Megan1967 07:45, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to penis envy, to which this is an obvious response, and put in a blurb about it there. With all due respect to Megan1967, I think that would be a better fit than female circumcision (even tho it is mentioned in the book and in the article), which is a cultural practice as opposed to a psychosexual condition. I have a hard time imagining that anyone unfamiliar with the book would look up this term expecting to find information on female circumcision... then again, I have a hard time imagining that anyone unfamiliar with the book would look up this term. --BD2412 08:25, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I may be mistaken, but redirecting may imply the term is a legitimate one (some sort of synonym), when in fact it may not be. Dysprosia 13:19, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • Concur with Dysprosia. Megan1967 22:38, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to penis envy. --Carnildo 08:42, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't think a redirect would help, not very likely to be searched for (as BD2412 said) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Even if they aren't the same and hence shouldn't be redirected, the term isn't widely used anyhow. Inter 14:29, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect - David Gerard 14:56, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete unless rewritten to be about the book -Sean Curtin 00:55, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
• If redirected to penis envy someone will need to write something in that article addressing this issue. Question: isn't this a term from the Vagina Monologues? If so, that might be a more appropriate redirect. 23skidoo 01:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the term is basically a joke, like that song "Vagina Envy" by Sewer Trout (I think it was Sewer Trout), or at least it's most commonly a joke. Wikipedia does have articles on some jokes, but it's not the sort of thing we want too much of. We're not a joke book. I'm tempted to say this isn;t really worth including, but I suppose there might be a place it could be mentioned. -R. fiend 02:03, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
    • If the term is indeed fictitious, then delete. 23skidoo 21:57, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete', not useful as a redirect. DaveTheRed 03:07, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, not useful as a redirect. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:15, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, no redirect. I can find no evidence that this is used in any serious context. Rossami (talk) 23:45, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, neologism, joke term. —Lowellian (talk) 02:53, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • And also, do not redirect. —Lowellian (talk) 02:57, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, Men don't oppress women because we lack a clitoris; men oppress because they write futhermucking nonsense like this. D. Wo. 05:17, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)
• Keep. I'll say that I find the barrage of opposition here a bit surprising, and some entries are simply machist, really. Some have attacked the merit of the analysis it implies. I find the quote from The First Sex by Elizabeth Gould Davis to be interesting to ponder about and possibly in part quite right. ...but even if you feel this is revenge bull****, as a poster politely implied, we can't delete an encyclopedia fot the merit we subjectively give it. I feel the article could be kept. Also, mentions of this outlook could be added to Sexism and Penis envy. I think the idea of historical sexism being in part attribuable to envy and fear is only an application of many theories about discrimination. So, at the least, this would warrant a rename or inclusion and expansion in the sexism article. And if the article were to be moved to sexism, redirects would be essential. --Liberlogos 05:29, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. <POV> Personally, I don't see why a man wants female genitalia. </POV> -- Riffsyphon1024 05:34, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Has anyone actually read the article? The question is not whether 'clitoris envy' is real, it is whether this concept has been seriously discussed. Apparently it has. Redirecting to penis envy is just plain silly. This is a brief, informative article which can stand on its own. --Lee Hunter 11:49, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. What R. fiend said. Penis envy is patent nonsense that is encyclopedic for historial reasons only, because it was dreamed up by Freud. "Clitoris envy" and "penis envy" are equally nonexistent, but the latter is notable while the former is not. -- Curps 07:00, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.