Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fexism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. - Daniel.Bryant 06:29, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Fexism

Fexism (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Neologism, original research, soapboxing, unverifiable, vanity (note that author's username matches one of the "theorists." PROD tag removed without addressing concerns. FreplySpang 19:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi what seems to be the problem with the page, any help and tips are welcome, cheers.

  • Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day -- Donald Albury 20:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete per WP:NEO, unless independent sources can be found to show that the word is used in an academic context. Walton monarchist89 21:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete as per nom and abov. Madmedea 21:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - who to the what now? OR, made up in school, no references, no verifiable sources... pick any two. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete - This article provides no verifiable sources to establish notability. Hsssssss. - Shaundakulbara 05:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete junk. JuJube 06:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave For Observation This article provides an alternative in-depth perspective of society from a sociologists view point. I urge that you leave this page for observation and discussion into the Fexist idea. Fexism is an idea yet to be brought to the media spotlight, as it has only just entered the sociology underworld. Lilleypower 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Sociology underworld? Is that like extreme ironing? JuJube 11:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Leave For Observation yes!! but much more interesting and less dangerous! A lot of the things people discuss come from uni lecturers mentioning things and students expanding on them, it is rumoured thatwhen Ralph Miliband taught at Leeds University, he first mentioned a sociology underworld!! but that is only a rumour! Lilleypower 10:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete See previous reasons from other members.--Kung Fu Man 23:10, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave For ObservationThe whole point of sociology is that it's peoples thoughts and views on society!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ijferguson (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. I'm not qualified to immediately judge this "junk", but what I can see is that the article is inadequately referenced, and with no clear evidence that this theory is any more notable than any of the thousands of other theories that sociologists invent each year. WMMartin 15:57, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Leave For Observation What harm is it doing here anyway? Dont make stupid suggestions that thousands of sociological theories are made up each year, thats rubbish. This theory IS supported by many people! Reseach is taking place as we speak which is VERIFIABLE. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.230.230 (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC).

Leave for Observation Why not? There should be a descriptive word for this. Just like men use their fists to get their own way, women may use their feminism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maggiethatcher (talk • contribs) (22:36, 28 January 2007) - first contribution to WP is this AfD comment

  • Delete, unable to find any verifiable use of this term in sources other than blogs, and few even there. Gimmetrow 04:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete It should be simple, really: Either it is verifiable in which case sources and verification should be displayed on the article page; or it is not verifiable in which case it shouldn't be here. Several people have tried to find independent verification and not succeeded. This has nothing to do with your attitude towards feminism or sexism -- it is a matter of independent sources and verifiable fact.--Bonadea 16:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.