Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femosphere

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 ‎Keep, without prejudice toward a rewrite to address NPOV and other content issues. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2025 (UTC)(non-admin closure)[reply]

Femosphere

[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)

Fails WP:GNG – The topic lacks significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. No academic or mainstream journalistic coverage establishes “femosphere” as a notable or recognized term. Academic sources cited in the article discuss adjacent but distinct topics (e.g., femcels, dating discourse), not the term itself.

Fails WP:RS/WP:V – The article relies on unreliable or non-independent sources, including YouTube videos, Reddit subreddits, and lifestyle blogs. Many claims are vaguely attributed or not verifiable at all.

Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR – The article synthesizes disparate online trends into a unified ideology without support from reliable sources. It presents “femosphere” as parallel to the “manosphere” without demonstrating scholarly or journalistic consensus. This constitutes original research and gives undue weight to an unestablished term.

Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY – The tone and framing of the article reflect ideological positioning. Phrases like “weaponising femininity” and “pervasive misandry” are ideologically charged and lack sourcing from neutral, reliable outlets.

Possible COI – The article was created within a week and appears to be part of coordinated promotion on Reddit. Several posts strongly suggest the article was written or commissioned by an individual promoting the term. This violates Wikipedia’s policies on conflict of interest and promotional content.

Misrepresents sources – The article distorts the argument made in its only scholarly source that actually uses the term “femosphere” (Kay, 2024). That source is a critique, framing the “femosphere” as a reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist discourse that mirrors manosphere logic. It is not a neutral or widely-accepted term. The Wikipedia article removes this critique, violating WP:V and WP:OR, and gives WP:UNDUE weight to a fringe concept coined by a single author. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 19:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing formatting of this page and will list it, procedurally taking no opinion at this time. Skynxnex (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Social science. Skynxnex (talk) 23:05, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I thank HairlessPolarBear for attempting to contribute, it appears that they are not using the AfD process in the spirit in which it’s intended. As a friendly comment to them, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia of notable, neutral, and objective articles. It is not anybody’s personal soapbox; nor is it a playground for the deletion of information that does not suit one’s agenda. As a good citizen, I find myself compelled to remind HairlessPolarBear that repeated, bad-faith usage of the AfD process could result in a permanent ban from the site.

Because Wikipedia requires me to respond to HairlessPolarBear’s claims, I shall do so – though I note that I would ordinarily save everybody time and energy by simply ignoring baseless assertions.

As a summary of HairlessPolarBear’s assertions, they appear to have employed a ‘spray ‘n’ pray’ approach to Wikipedia guideline violations in the hope that one of them might ‘stick’. Fortunately, the improper citing of the violations is so manifest as to be easily spotted and dismissed by any genuinely impartial administrator.

To address each assertion in turn:

“Fails WP:GNG”

The article is underpinned by numerous reliable, independent sources that discuss the femosphere as a phenomenon. Subsidiary to this, numerous additional sources discuss femcels – a key demographic of the femosphere. If the administrator is in any doubt, they need only Google “femosphere”. Doing so will return thousands of reliable, independent sources that demonstrate significant notability of the subject and broad recognition of the term.

“Fails WP:RS/WP:V”

This is a profoundly misleading claim. The article does not “rely” on these subreddits as sources; rather, it mentions them as points of interest in exactly the same way that the “manosphere” Wikipedia article does, as shown in this extract from the manosphere article:

“…such as /r/incels (banned in 2017), its successor /r/braincels (banned in 2018), and /r/MGTOW (banned in August 2021); other subreddits such as /r/TheRedPill”

Regarding the YouTube links, in no way do these underpin the article as “sources”; rather, I provided these links as points of interest for readers.

The references to subreddits and YouTube could be removed entirely and the integrity of the article would be unaffected.

“Violates WP:FRINGE and WP:OR”

This is incorrect and HairlessPolarBear appears to be confusing the fact that the femosphere is itself an umbrella term for multiple, disparate subgroups with the idea that it lacks a precise definition. I suggest that they Google “umbrella term”. None of the article constitutes original research – I do not understand how they arrived at this idea.

“Violates WP:NOTADVOCACY”

This is the only claim that may have some validity. It is always difficult to articulate controversial (and, in the case of the femosphere, toxic) ideas in a way that uses objective language but that also clearly communicates to the reader the danger and severity of the underlying ideologies.

I would be happy to modify this language, should anyone wish to suggest suitable alternatives.

“Possible COI”

This is claim appears to have been entirely fabricated. I have no conflict of interest and I did not write the article in collaboration with anybody else; nor am I active on Reddit in terms of posting/commenting.

Entering “femosphere” as a search term on Reddit does indeed bring up numerous posts that span several years. Whilst my search was cursory, I could not identify any co-ordinated links between the posts. Rather, the search results actually contradict HairlessPolarBear’s claims; that is, the femosphere is clearly a very well-documented and broadly discussed term.

One could be forgiven for thinking that it is, in fact, HairlessPolarBear who has the conflict of interest in this case.

“Misrepresents sources”

I’m not suggesting that HairlessPolarBear didn’t bother reading the article before recommending it for deletion, but if they had read it then they would have noticed the first bullet point on the list describing femosphere radicalisation narratives:

“A rejection of liberal feminism, asserting that it has failed to deliver a world consistent with feminists’ aspirations.”

This rejection of liberal feminism is the “reactionary, bio-essentialist, and anti-liberationist” critique that HairlessPolarBear asserts has been “removed”. I would be happy to expand on this point in the article, for clarity, but not doing so would not invalidate the article itself.

As a broader point, HairlessPolarBear appears to be suggesting that I have attempted to frame the femosphere in a positive light. How they drew this conclusion is beyond me! They will note that I explicitly described femosphere discourse as “toxic”. I could not have been more clear on this point.

In conclusion regarding HairlessPolarBear’s AfD assertions, I note that not only are all of their assertions (apart from, perhaps, the type of language used in two of the sentences) wrong, but all of them are opinion-based only and they do not in any way reflect an objective or evidence-based argument. I shall repeat here my above thought about which of us really has the conflict of interest.

In conclusion regarding the article, the article covers a subject of significant notability and is supported by numerous reliable, independent sources. Moreover, the femosphere is currently a subject of intensive debate and study in academia, the media, and among the public. Considering this, and all of the above, the femosphere deserves its own Wikipedia article and I am confident that the article I have written is in full accordance with Wikipedia's guidelines.

I therefore vote to KEEP the article, and I implore any administrator reviewing this to do the same in the name of intellectual and moral integrity. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the above formatting. I'm not sure why the spaces between paragraphs were removed and I can't see a way to edit it. Daft Elephant (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

~~* delete~~ – does not meet notability, sourcing, or neutrality standards. I recommend deletion based on the following Wikipedia policies:

1. Notability (WP:GNG): The term femosphere does not meet the general notability guideline. It has not received significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable secondary sources. The only scholarly source that uses the term—Kay (2024)—critiques it as a reactionary, bio-essentialist, anti-liberationist discourse. Other references discuss related topics (e.g., femcels or dating culture) but do not establish "femosphere" as a recognized concept. To clarify: while one academic source (Kay, 2024) does use the term, it does so critically, not as part of a broader academic consensus. This reinforces the argument that the term lacks the type of sustained, neutral secondary coverage required under WP:GNG.

2. Reliable Sourcing and Verifiability (WP:RS / WP:V): The article includes sources such as Reddit and YouTube, which are not considered reliable under Wikipedia standards. Even if not cited as core references, their presence undermines the article’s verifiability and neutrality.

3. Neutrality and Undue Weight (WP:NPOV / WP:UNDUE): The article frames “femosphere” as a coherent, established ideological counterpart to the manosphere, without sufficient evidence of scholarly or journalistic consensus. This grants undue weight to a marginal or emerging term.

4. Original Research and Synthesis (WP:OR / WP:SYNTH): The article synthesizes disparate online communities and cultural trends into a unified concept that is not reflected in reliable sources. This violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original editorial synthesis.

5. Advocacy and Tone (WP:NOTADVOCACY): Phrases such as “weaponising femininity” and “pervasive misandry” reflect ideologically charged language without reliable sourcing. Even if the editor is willing to revise these, the article’s broader framing remains ideologically constructed rather than neutrally descriptive.

6. Recentism and Neologism Concerns (WP:NEO): The article was created just 7 days ago. While recency alone does not disqualify a topic, it does raise flags when combined with low coverage and a newly coined term. Wikipedia is not a platform for popularizing emerging neologisms.

In sum, this article does not meet Wikipedia’s standards for notability, sourcing, neutrality, or encyclopedic framing. I respectfully recommend deletion. If the concept gains reliable coverage in the future, it can always be reconsidered.

HairlessPolarBear (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This comment is a direct recapitulation of @HairlessPolarBear's original comment above and does not contain any new points. As such, it constitutes harrassment and I once again impress upon the administrators that this is a clear case of @HairlessPolarBear having a conflict of interest in attempting to have an article deleted because it does not promote their agenda.

I have comprehensively refuted these baseless assertions above and shall not do so again here. I shall, however, suggest that @HairlessPolarBear felt compelled to repeat their original comment to distract from the fact that I so thoroughly and objectively refuted their baseless assertions.

I shall be following this up with the administrators because, clearly, a single rogue editor in the form of @HairlessPolarBear is able to wreak havoc on a notable, neutral, and objectively-written article - not to mention the enormous amount of everybody's time they have wasted.

As I have discussed in detail above, any genuinely impartial administrator would never uphold any of @HairlessPolarBear's assertions. Daft Elephant (talk) 17:44, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Based on the commentary provided by non-nominators + reviewing the article, rationale provided is erroneous and this should be kept through WP:CSK criteria 3. Given the article was nominated by a single-purpose account created on April 23 2025 I am also suspicious of motives.

Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 23:01, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (although I see no reason for speedy; it's reasonable to have a discussion). I've done a quick web search, and it seems to me that the topic passes WP:GNG. I can fully understand and sympathize with the view that this might be some sort of attempt to weaponize the concept of manosphere, but it does look to me like this is "a thing", regardless of whether it is distasteful. If there are POV problems with the tone of the page, and there might well be, that should be fixed through normal editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might have pov issues, maybe the article needs TNT, but sourcing suggests notability to concept Bluethricecreamman (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, any POV or other issues notwithstanding, which per policy are of course irrelevant to deletion. Cheers, RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 13:27, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the above comments, this article passes GNG. In this way, notability does not mean agreeing with the content, but that there is enough coverage that this article should exist per WP:5P1. FULBERT (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to the above editors for their contributions. I have adjusted the tone and added sections. I’d welcome more suggestions on how to improve the article.

I’m also thankful to @Anonrfjwhuikdzz for pointing out that the rogue editor who nominated the article for deletion did so with a single-use account that was clearly created with the sole purpose of vandalising the article (I hadn't realised this previously). @Skynxnex I’ve reached out to the administrators about this here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Daft_Elephant), but I’m not sure if I’ve used the “Admin help” feature correctly – please could you advise? Daft Elephant (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but the article needs to be rewritten to be more encyclopedic.★Trekker (talk) 12:12, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Thank you to all editors who have contributed to this discussion. I appreciate the thoughtful comments and would like to clarify my nomination in light of the updated article.

Key Content Policy Concerns (Still Unresolved) Neutrality and Attribution (WP:NPOV, WP:V) The article continues to present editorial claims as fact, without appropriate attribution to reliable sources.

- It describes the "femosphere" as a "body of (broadly misandrist) feminist spaces" without citing a reliable, independent secondary source using that framing. - It outlines "radicalisation narratives" without clear attribution to reliable secondary sources, violating neutrality standards.

Simply labeling a topic "toxic" does not resolve neutrality issues. Wikipedia requires verifiable sourcing and proper attribution, not editorial judgment.

A neutral summary would describe the "femosphere" as "loosely connected communities, some of which have been criticized for promoting toxic or reactionary narratives" — rather than editorializing about a unified ideology of misandry.

Original Research and Synthesis (WP:OR, WP:SYNTH) The article synthesizes disparate phenomena (femcels, tradwives, dating discourse) into a single radicalisation framework that no reliable source defines.

- No secondary source establishes that the femosphere constitutes an organized radicalisation pipeline. - Sources critique aspects of online feminism (e.g., femcels), but they do not link them into a coherent radical movement against men.

The current structure invents connections not made by reliable sources, which constitutes prohibited original research.

Misrepresentation and Misuse of Sources (WP:V, WP:NPOV) Several cited sources are used improperly:

- Kay (2024) critiques the "femosphere" as a reactionary discourse but does not present it as a unified radicalisation network. - Healy (2024) critically discusses toxic elements in some communities but emphasizes the fractured, emerging nature of the "femosphere" — not a coherent radicalisation system.

The article overstates both the strength of the connections between communities and the severity of their ideological coherence, granting undue weight to marginal interpretations.

Moreover, sources like social media references, YouTube videos, and Reddit posts are not sufficient to establish verifiable, neutral claims about radicalisation pipelines.

Structural Deficiencies: Unsourced "Narratives" Section (WP:V, WP:OR) The "femosphere radicalisation narratives" section remains unsourced editorial synthesis:

- The bullet points do not cite reliable sources that explicitly group these narratives together. - Even if reworded, the section would violate WP:OR because the thematic structure itself is not supported by independent secondary sources.

This section would need to be fully removed or radically reconstructed based on solid sourcing.

Why TNT ("Blow It Up and Start Over") Is the Appropriate Standard This article's problems are foundational:

- Neutrality issues are structural, not superficial. - Original research cannot be patched with minor edits. - Sourcing does not support the current framing or organization.

Normal editing is insufficient. Significant rewriting — possibly rebuilding the topic from scratch with better sourcing — would be required to meet Wikipedia standards.

Additional Note: Systemic Bias Tag At one point, another editor added a "too few perspectives" (systemic bias) tag based on these neutrality concerns. Although the tag has since been removed, its prior placement demonstrates that concerns about neutrality and representation were independently recognized by editors beyond the nominator. (See [Wikipedia:Countering Systemic Bias](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias)).

Conclusion The topic may merit eventual inclusion, but the current version of the article does not meet Wikipedia's standards for neutrality, verifiability, or avoidance of original research.

Therefore, I respectfully recommend deletion.

If better sourcing emerges in the future, a properly neutral, policy-compliant article could always be created.

Thank you again for considering these points carefully. HairlessPolarBear (talk) 10:11, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON and WP:TLDR. And these are things that can be addressed through the normal editing and revision process. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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.