Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slut-shaming

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. No prejudice against the opening of a merge discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slut-shaming

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

Per WP:NEO. "Slut" is a notable concept, and the SlutWalk a notable event, but this word is not notable. St Anselm (talk) 01:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Going with keep on this one. It's a neologism, but a cursory gsearch seems to indicate that it's quite widely used. §FreeRangeFrog 02:07, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The word "maddening" is also widely used, as even a cursory gsearch will indicate, but that is not an encyclopedic term either. Carrite (talk) 15:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don't get the WP:NEO argument; the article isn't about the word, it's about the concept, which is illustrated in many sources. I'm not totally opposed to a merge to slut (though not to SlutWalk), but it would have to be a merge and allow for expansion of a section to discuss the subject, not just a redirect. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:37, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Dictionary definition of a non-notable neologism. Urban Dictionary is thattaway... ----> Carrite (talk) 15:49, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Slut where it will be more widely read - and explain the two photos in the article; too new and too few WP:RS. CarolMooreDC 18:26, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or Keep). Passes WP:NEO as there are several books and journal articles that discuss the concept of slut-shaming (rather than just using the term).[1][2][3] As the article is quite short right now, I would favor merging into slut, but I believe a longer article could stand on its own. Kaldari (talk) 21:34, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, has received significant coverage in secondary sources including: 1) News articles with this term as the title of the news article, 2) Multiple different sorts of books with significant discussion of phenomenon, and 3) Lots of academic journal coverage from scholarly sources. More info at: (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL). — Cirt (talk) 00:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. KillerChihuahua^?!? 13:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

STRONG Delete per WP:NEO. Wikipedia is not the Urban Dictionary. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- FWIW, it seems to pass WP:NEO (see my comments above). Kaldari (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt. PianoDan (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per CarolMooreCC. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 19:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-known concept and the most common phrase to describe making women who are sexually active feel bad about it while considering it natural behavior for men. It's the topic of multiple main stream news articles[4][5][6][7][8][9], scholarly research and discussion, and even a Planned Parenthood campaign. --David Shankbone 05:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is notable, as demonstrated by reliable sources such as this. Gobōnobō ⁺ ^c 06:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Expand per Kaldari. --ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge. Although the article should be rewritten and has a neologism for a title, it discusses a type of discrimination deserving attention on any extensive encyclopedia, let alone Wikipedia. It has been suggested on the talk page of the slut article that “it might be good to add a section on ‘slut-shaming’”, and should the gentry refuse to keep this one article on, it's to be exported into a section of the aforementioned article, until a time when it may be resurrected as an article in its own right. EIN (talk) 13:47, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cirt and Roscelese.--В и к и T 15:35, 5 December 2012 (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.