- 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also a need to clean up this article and remove poor sources. Hopefully, there will be follow-up to this AFD and some improvement made to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Cotton ceiling
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cotton ceiling ( | 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)
Lacks notability, all sources are either not reliable or do not mention the phrase. There is one exception but that source is biased and has had to be heavily redacted by the publisher, and should not be the basis for an entire article or be sufficient to alone establish notability. Rab V ( talk) 19:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V ( talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Sheesh. It's not as if uses of the term, and discussions of its origin and applicability, are hard to find. A scholarly essay: [1]. A LRoB article: [2]. Two textbook chapters: [3] [4]. Transcripts from a House of Commons debate: [5]. Two of the first references in the current article are a conference publication based on a PhD thesis [6] and a BBC article [7]. Casual, blog and forum use of the term is all over the place [8]. Notability is not in question here, it's just a matter of selecting the best among those sources for the article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Blog and forum use are not relevant to determining notability, see WP:NOTABILITY. Passing mentions in articles not about the cotton ceiling do not help much either. Transcripts from House of Common debates are primary sources, so do not determine notability either. The books you mention are polemics, not textbooks. PhD dissertations are not great sources. Rab V ( talk) 07:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It has reliable sources, 12 books with ISBN and many academic articles with DOI. 39 references. All sources explicitly name the term cotton ceiling. It is better referenced than a huge amount of articles that exist in Wikipedia. -- Kottkaniemi ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Books having ISBN numbers are not relevant to whether they are reliable. Cited books in the article, like 'Liberalism: Find A Cure' and 'How The Transgender Craze is Redefining Reality', are on the level long-form self-published opinion pieces. They are not reliable, independent and cannot be depended on by Wikipedia to determine notability. Rab V ( talk) 08:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Merge Largely unreliable sources, as per nom. A merge seems to be the best recourse, perhaps to Lesbian erasure. One could argue merging it into Transgender_inequality#Transgender_people_and_unequal_treatment_in_the_LGBT_community as well. Mooonswimmer 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Vote *Merge per Moonswimmer to Lesbian Erasure Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: per Elmidae and Kottkaniemi, has enough reliable sources, and it's a common language term. Article could use clean up and removal of the poor sources, but that is not the same as AfD. PigeonChickenFish ( talk) 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - article needs cleanup and removal of poor sources, but there appear to be enough sources that are academic or mainstream publishing that are sufficient to show notability and provide content to write about. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. I see a consensus to Keep this article but also a need to clean up this article and remove poor sources. Hopefully, there will be follow-up to this AFD and some improvement made to this article. Liz Read! Talk! 08:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
Cotton ceiling
AfDs for this article:
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Cotton ceiling ( | 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)
Lacks notability, all sources are either not reliable or do not mention the phrase. There is one exception but that source is biased and has had to be heavily redacted by the publisher, and should not be the basis for an entire article or be sufficient to alone establish notability. Rab V ( talk) 19:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Rab V ( talk) 19:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep Sheesh. It's not as if uses of the term, and discussions of its origin and applicability, are hard to find. A scholarly essay: [1]. A LRoB article: [2]. Two textbook chapters: [3] [4]. Transcripts from a House of Commons debate: [5]. Two of the first references in the current article are a conference publication based on a PhD thesis [6] and a BBC article [7]. Casual, blog and forum use of the term is all over the place [8]. Notability is not in question here, it's just a matter of selecting the best among those sources for the article. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:43, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
- Blog and forum use are not relevant to determining notability, see WP:NOTABILITY. Passing mentions in articles not about the cotton ceiling do not help much either. Transcripts from House of Common debates are primary sources, so do not determine notability either. The books you mention are polemics, not textbooks. PhD dissertations are not great sources. Rab V ( talk) 07:24, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Keep It has reliable sources, 12 books with ISBN and many academic articles with DOI. 39 references. All sources explicitly name the term cotton ceiling. It is better referenced than a huge amount of articles that exist in Wikipedia. -- Kottkaniemi ( talk) 10:59, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
- Books having ISBN numbers are not relevant to whether they are reliable. Cited books in the article, like 'Liberalism: Find A Cure' and 'How The Transgender Craze is Redefining Reality', are on the level long-form self-published opinion pieces. They are not reliable, independent and cannot be depended on by Wikipedia to determine notability. Rab V ( talk) 08:11, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
- Merge Largely unreliable sources, as per nom. A merge seems to be the best recourse, perhaps to Lesbian erasure. One could argue merging it into Transgender_inequality#Transgender_people_and_unequal_treatment_in_the_LGBT_community as well. Mooonswimmer 00:32, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Vote *Merge per Moonswimmer to Lesbian Erasure Ask me about air Cryogenic air ( talk) 13:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep: per Elmidae and Kottkaniemi, has enough reliable sources, and it's a common language term. Article could use clean up and removal of the poor sources, but that is not the same as AfD. PigeonChickenFish ( talk) 06:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
- Keep - article needs cleanup and removal of poor sources, but there appear to be enough sources that are academic or mainstream publishing that are sufficient to show notability and provide content to write about. Crossroads -talk- 05:08, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- 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.