Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/War on Women - Wikipedia

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. Wifione ^Message 07:33, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

War on Women (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

A quote farm that does not demonstrate the topic exists, short of extracting a phrase from the quotes. Description of the "topic" is WP:OR. SummerPhD (talk) 00:33, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pure synthesis and attempt to create a neologism Clovis Sangrail (talk) 00:38, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Unquestionably an ongoing political meme. See Culture of life, Culture of corruption, Silent majority, etc. bd2412 T 01:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  NOTE: Culture of corruption moved to 2006 Republican party scandals. --Uncle Ed (talk) 12:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Good move; I wasn't sure how that should be played yesterday, but it was pretty clearly a bad name. Culture of life is also a POV subject phrasing, in my opinion. Silent Majority is a clearly encyclopedic topic with a correct title. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unquestionable? Guess what: I'm questioning it. Yes, those other articles exist. If this is a notable "ongoing political meme", we need substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, not random quotes. Yes, some people have said "war on women" in various contexts, some of which are mentioned in the article. However, we need reliable sources discussing the idea "War on Women". We don't have that. We have some OR and a quote farm. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Google News shows over two thousand articles including the phrase "War on Women". I've only looked at the first few pages, but so far all of them are about a political meme wherein Democrats are asserting that Republican policies constitute an effort to reduce women's rights. Without evaluating the propriety of the accusation itself, the evidence clearly shows that the phrase is being used widely in this manner. bd2412 T 01:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the current (neologism/recentism) use of the the phrase seems to match the lede of this would-be article. However, your Google news results are sorted by date. Dig further back (all the way to -- gasp! -- all of 5 to 10 years ago) and you'll notice that many of your would-be sources are for "Bush's war on women" or the "Taliban's war on women". By 1994, your sources are for the "war on women's cancer". 1991 gives you sources for "Louisiana's war on women". Part of your results from 1939 are discussing the Allies' "war on women" (according to Hitler). I'm not sure if he's a Republican or Democrat, but by 1902 some of your "over two thousand" articles are discussing Lord Kitchener's "war on women". - SummerPhD (talk) 02:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the extent that any of these uses can be presented as a single coherent and independent concept, it absolutely should be the subject of an article. bd2412 T 02:24, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, to the extent that independent reliable sources provide significant coverage of these uses as single, coherent subjects, the absolutely could be. Without that coverage, we don't have a notable concept, we have some OR tacked on to a quote farm (as in the present case). - SummerPhD (talk) 02:28, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Quote farmy synthy OR-y mush. It's not an encyclopedia's job to chronicle every attack or phrase used a few times.--Yaksar (let's chat) 01:46, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Summarize, Merge, & Redirect to 2012 U.S. birth control insurance coverage mandate controversy‎; term is related to that parent article, and is not independently notable. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a POV essay. Here's your big lead, for the record: "A "War on Women" is what U.S. Democrats say Republican policy amounts to, particularly in regards to women's health." Ugh. Carrite (talk) 04:30, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is typical political rhetoric to say that the other side has a war on this or that, but until it becomes a generally accepted concept, it lacks notability. TFD (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article fails the first three points of WP:SOAPBOX. It is non-neutral advocacy (point 1), an opinion article as previously noted (point 2) and it's attempting to create an issue out of thin air (point 3). Wikipedia must not be used as a political tool. --McDoobAU93 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Clearly a POV soapbox to attack Republicans. OSborn ^arf_contribs. 16:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly an essay, unencyclopedic. Fails WP:NPOV & WP:SOAPBOX.--JayJasper (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment to closing admin: please allow me to userfy this. I'll work on it more by myself and see if I can fix the problems mentioned above. --Uncle Ed (talk) 21:56, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems something of a WP:POVFORK of other, more neutral articles on the same subjects. It's true that we have articles on similar political phrases (War on drugs, war on poverty, war on terror, war on Islam, war on Christmas...), but this one hasn't yet achieved such lasting notability; the events in question are far too recent to say this term has passed into common use. If it does, a more neutral article can always be created. Robofish (talk) 01:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to 112th United States Congress since we don't have an article on these Republican efforts specifically, which would be the better redirect target, and since the article should be updated to include material on what actually happened in this session. (It's used in older material, but seems to be principally used in reference to this Congress.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:33, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that option ... that would almost be like a wiki version of the Google bomb. --McDoobAU93 00:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I didn't get a response to my userfication request, so I went ahead and did it myself (see User:Ed Poor/War on Women). But I didn't blank the page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It's a neologism used as a slur against another political party; these are rather common in the American political system and very few are even worthy of a page. This simply isn't. Toa Nidhiki05 23:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment If it's not an important enough neologism on its own, then maybe a few of the ideas can go in the Contraceptive mandates article. The contending sides there are accusing each other of waging a "War on women" (libs/dems re: cons/reps) and a "War on religion" (cons/reps re: libs/dems). --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:08, 14 March 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.