Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manel (term)

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:24, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Manel (term)

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

This page documents an unnotable tumblr/twitter hashtag neologism (WP:NOTDIC/WP:NOTNEO), seemingly to promote the term. A relevant issue notice has been present nearly since the page's creation, and has not been addressed. While the neologism got a small amount of attention in some reliable sources (as a scare-quoted neologism), that coverage was limited to late May 2015 and was not sustained (WP:SUSTAINED). Most of the older versions of the pages contained instructions for creating meme-images, which leads me to believe the page was created to promote or add legitimacy to some private jargon (WP:PROMOTION).

It should also be noted that nearly all of the reliable-sources hits for this word are actually for people with the Spanish name "Manel," not for the term as used in the article.

GretLomborg (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any evidence that the term itself is notable, as described in the nomination. An article about the term is therefore inappropriate. However, I think content regarding sexism in the context of discussion panels could conceivably be supported by reliable sources and the appropriate place to do that would be in the article panel discussion. Deli nk (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 19:53, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIC; insufficient WP:DEPTH of coverage in the few RS that actually mention the term- ostly only of a passing nature- does not meet WP:GNG. — O Fortuna^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 08:23, 6 June 2017 (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.