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 no consensus. Discussion regarding the article's content and scope can continue on its talk page, as can notions about a page move (to change the article's tile) or a merge. Per the discussion herein, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article's lead. (
Non-administrator closure)
NorthAmerica1000 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I cannot find the term "feminist stripper" in any of the 20 sources given in the article. (All but three of the sources have URLs, and I searched all 17 of the others.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 00:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I think an article under that title, built using those sources, might have some value. This article under this title doesn't. St★lwart111 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
It is odd that the
Sex-positive feminism article does not include the word "stripper," and the
Stripper article doesn't include the word "feminist." I might see merging this article (feminist stripper) into the sex-positive feminist article. (The stripper article is already over 7,000 words, but the SPF article is less than half that size.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The "loads more" I see are: Twitter, geeksandcleats.com, blacksportsonline.com, lockerdome.com, barstoolsports.com, sportsmaster.com, assorted minor blogs, and a question asked at feminist.com. There may be dozens of hits, but taken together, nothing that meets
WP:GNG.
Lightbreather (
talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Journal of International Women's Studies: zero that I found.
[1] Same at elsevier.com and sciencedirect.com, which have Women's Studies International Forum (formerly Women's Studies International Quarterly). You can find articles with the words "feminist" and "stripper" - but not "feminist stripper."Lightbreather (
talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: There's even an entire study titled Feminist Stripper: A Call to Arms : Convention and Counter-practice in Erotic Performance (2011), by Marianna Leishman of the
University of Sydney Department of Gender and Cultural Studies. — Cirt (
talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Cirt's arguments; if its a legitimate expresswion it passes notability and deserves an article. ♫
SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Does one book a legitimate expression make? In 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald said of Leishman (stage name Zahra Stardust):
Feminist pole dancer Sex Party candidate for Bradfield.Ms Stardust, a law graduate whose real name is Marianna Leishman, has a colourful resume. Among stints at the United Nations and an ongoing masters degree, the feminist 'Gen Y' writer also twirls fire, teaches pole dancing and swings from a trapeze for a living.Lightbreather (
talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not sure what's going on with this AFD but the context has changed mid-discussion and people's comments were changed so as to amend the meaning of subsequent comments. To my mind, there is a big difference between
Feminist strippers (plural) which describes a group of people (inaccurately) with potential BLP violations to boot and
Feminist stripper (singular) which is a concept; a descriptor which an individual might feel applies to their views with regard to both "feminism" and "stripping". One is a potentially pejorative collective noun and the other is an academic subject. I have far less of a problem with the academic concept of the "feminist stripper" provided it is backed up by solid research. I still think, "a combination of original research and synthesis" accurately describes the content of the current article under the new title but I have no f**king clue what we're actually discussing now (and I've struck my !vote). As discussed above, there is a notable concept here but not at the original title or with the original content. Hacking it up and trying to move it to a new title seems pointless when we have the option to simply
start again. St★lwart111 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete with reserve meaning that I'm voting to delete until more sources specifically mentioning 'feminist strippers' or the concept of a 'feminist stripper' is demonstrated. I've access to JSTOR, and while the documents do mention stripping and feminism, they don't connect the dots like our WP:NOR policy demonstrates that they should.
Tutelary (
talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cirt, the content problems can be fixed. If it's deleted so will the motivation to improve the coverage of the topic, it will simply dissapear.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 18:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but consider changing title. This article addresses an interesting intersection between a profession that some consider anti-women, with women in that profession who hold strong pro-feminist ideals. It has many reliable sources pertinent to the topic. I haven't reviewed the citations in detail, but if they are solid, then this article should remain.
Mattnad (
talk) 16:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep as a subject amply described in reliable sources to warrant an article per
WP:GNG. While there seems to be a need to address the article's title and perhaps its scope, that is not a reason for deletion. We have articles for
feminist views of pornography and
feminist views on prostitution, but this is the only one on the intersection of feminism and stripping. As the articles for
stripper,
striptease, and
strip club do not yet mention feminism, deleting this article would pretty much erase the entire idea from Wikipedia.
gobonobo+c 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep because the topic has plenty of reliable sources per
WP:GNG. I'm neutral on the name change. But I encourage everyone here to keep it on their watchlist to get rid of BLP violations. Sydney Poore/
FloNight♥♥♥♥
Delete / merge I notice the term "feminist stripper" seems pretty much agreed upon as original thought. I don't see how this justifies it's own article. Seems we could just add a section to the article
Stripper regarding stereotypes of strippers and the literature on those who do not conform to those stereotypes. --
BoboMeowCat (
talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is an exercise in
WP:SYNTH. While the phrase turns up in various places, nothing in the sourcing provided here establishes either that the term has a generally accepted meaning that corresponds to what is said in this article, or that the sources actually address the concept of the "feminist stripper" as opposed to the occupation generally. It reads like a term paper or a sociology class assignment.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (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.
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 no consensus. Discussion regarding the article's content and scope can continue on its talk page, as can notions about a page move (to change the article's tile) or a merge. Per the discussion herein, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template to the article's lead. (
Non-administrator closure)
NorthAmerica1000 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I cannot find the term "feminist stripper" in any of the 20 sources given in the article. (All but three of the sources have URLs, and I searched all 17 of the others.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 00:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
I think an article under that title, built using those sources, might have some value. This article under this title doesn't. St★lwart111 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
It is odd that the
Sex-positive feminism article does not include the word "stripper," and the
Stripper article doesn't include the word "feminist." I might see merging this article (feminist stripper) into the sex-positive feminist article. (The stripper article is already over 7,000 words, but the SPF article is less than half that size.)
Lightbreather (
talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The "loads more" I see are: Twitter, geeksandcleats.com, blacksportsonline.com, lockerdome.com, barstoolsports.com, sportsmaster.com, assorted minor blogs, and a question asked at feminist.com. There may be dozens of hits, but taken together, nothing that meets
WP:GNG.
Lightbreather (
talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Journal of International Women's Studies: zero that I found.
[1] Same at elsevier.com and sciencedirect.com, which have Women's Studies International Forum (formerly Women's Studies International Quarterly). You can find articles with the words "feminist" and "stripper" - but not "feminist stripper."Lightbreather (
talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Note: There's even an entire study titled Feminist Stripper: A Call to Arms : Convention and Counter-practice in Erotic Performance (2011), by Marianna Leishman of the
University of Sydney Department of Gender and Cultural Studies. — Cirt (
talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep as per Cirt's arguments; if its a legitimate expresswion it passes notability and deserves an article. ♫
SqueakBoxtalkcontribs 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Does one book a legitimate expression make? In 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald said of Leishman (stage name Zahra Stardust):
Feminist pole dancer Sex Party candidate for Bradfield.Ms Stardust, a law graduate whose real name is Marianna Leishman, has a colourful resume. Among stints at the United Nations and an ongoing masters degree, the feminist 'Gen Y' writer also twirls fire, teaches pole dancing and swings from a trapeze for a living.Lightbreather (
talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment - I'm not sure what's going on with this AFD but the context has changed mid-discussion and people's comments were changed so as to amend the meaning of subsequent comments. To my mind, there is a big difference between
Feminist strippers (plural) which describes a group of people (inaccurately) with potential BLP violations to boot and
Feminist stripper (singular) which is a concept; a descriptor which an individual might feel applies to their views with regard to both "feminism" and "stripping". One is a potentially pejorative collective noun and the other is an academic subject. I have far less of a problem with the academic concept of the "feminist stripper" provided it is backed up by solid research. I still think, "a combination of original research and synthesis" accurately describes the content of the current article under the new title but I have no f**king clue what we're actually discussing now (and I've struck my !vote). As discussed above, there is a notable concept here but not at the original title or with the original content. Hacking it up and trying to move it to a new title seems pointless when we have the option to simply
start again. St★lwart111 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete with reserve meaning that I'm voting to delete until more sources specifically mentioning 'feminist strippers' or the concept of a 'feminist stripper' is demonstrated. I've access to JSTOR, and while the documents do mention stripping and feminism, they don't connect the dots like our WP:NOR policy demonstrates that they should.
Tutelary (
talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep per Cirt, the content problems can be fixed. If it's deleted so will the motivation to improve the coverage of the topic, it will simply dissapear.
Roger (Dodger67) (
talk) 18:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep but consider changing title. This article addresses an interesting intersection between a profession that some consider anti-women, with women in that profession who hold strong pro-feminist ideals. It has many reliable sources pertinent to the topic. I haven't reviewed the citations in detail, but if they are solid, then this article should remain.
Mattnad (
talk) 16:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep as a subject amply described in reliable sources to warrant an article per
WP:GNG. While there seems to be a need to address the article's title and perhaps its scope, that is not a reason for deletion. We have articles for
feminist views of pornography and
feminist views on prostitution, but this is the only one on the intersection of feminism and stripping. As the articles for
stripper,
striptease, and
strip club do not yet mention feminism, deleting this article would pretty much erase the entire idea from Wikipedia.
gobonobo+c 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep because the topic has plenty of reliable sources per
WP:GNG. I'm neutral on the name change. But I encourage everyone here to keep it on their watchlist to get rid of BLP violations. Sydney Poore/
FloNight♥♥♥♥
Delete / merge I notice the term "feminist stripper" seems pretty much agreed upon as original thought. I don't see how this justifies it's own article. Seems we could just add a section to the article
Stripper regarding stereotypes of strippers and the literature on those who do not conform to those stereotypes. --
BoboMeowCat (
talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete. The article is an exercise in
WP:SYNTH. While the phrase turns up in various places, nothing in the sourcing provided here establishes either that the term has a generally accepted meaning that corresponds to what is said in this article, or that the sources actually address the concept of the "feminist stripper" as opposed to the occupation generally. It reads like a term paper or a sociology class assignment.
The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (
talk) 20:16, 18 October 2014 (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.