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 snow keep — strong consensus out of the gate that this is not a dictionary definition. Nominator has added a "keep" !vote that effectively withdraws the nomination. XOR'easter (talk) 19:37, 6 March 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Mansplaining (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

it doesn't seem to me there is any substantial information that would exclude this article from being deleted under WP:WINAD Kuralesache (talk) 16:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I disagree with the deletion rationale. Readers of the article will find abundant non-dictionary content. I do think the article would benefit from a less WP:ISATERMFOR opening sentence, but that's a fixable problem and not a reason to delete. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:45, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you provide an example of this content? I really don't see anything on this page that you couldn't replace with information about an arbitrary English word, especially if it's a neologism. Kuralesache (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is beyond a dictionary definition.--Mvqr (talk) 17:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There seem to me to be considerable substantive differences between mansplaining and wiktionary:mansplaining. The entire "Criticism" section of the article is appropriate to the article but would be entirely out of place in a definition. The article is well referenced. Thincat (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep I've read Men Explain Things to Me by Rebecca Solnit which explores the term in detail, and when I see this article, she's written a follow up book on the phenomenon. So that alone is two books where mainsplaining is the key topic. Not to mention all the other links. This clearly is a notable phenomenon and the article goes way beyond a dictionary definition.

Also please be aware that we're discussion deleting a B class article that is considered to be of mid importance to two WikiProjects! CT55555 (talk) 18:17, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not sure where best to add a general response (I opened this), but I didn't realize when I opened this how many articles there are for words like shit/asshole where the word is I guess controversial and used widely enough to get an article. I'm not sure I agree with the existence of those articles, but I concede that Wikipedia generally has these kinds of articles. Kuralesache (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Women and Sexuality and gender. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Passes WP:GNG per significant coverage WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources such as the article in The Atlantic, The Cultural History of Mansplaining: The word is relatively new, but the idea has been around for decades[1]; Inside Higher Ed, Calling Out Academic Mansplaining [2]; the Los Angeles Times, the New York Times, the New Republic, the Washington Post, the Sidney Morning Herald, BBC News, and Rebecca Solnit's books and essays among many others. Snowballs anyone? Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2022 (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.