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 Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#G3 and, to some degree, WP:SNOW. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neurosexism[edit]

Neurosexism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

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

Neologism which does not appear to be in currency with anyone except Cordelia Fine. See e.g. GBooks, GScholar (includes one other author, who put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is made up), GNews archive (three results, all discussing Fine, two using the term in quotation marks). Not a presently notable term or concept. PROD contested without comment.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 00:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: as per WP:NOTDIC Turgan ^Talk 00:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to Cordelia Fine if someone wishes to start an article about this notable academic. Pburka (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:07, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: No evidence of notability, recreation of previously deleted article, user has not responded to message left inviting him to work with me on improving it. Frmatt (talk) 01:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: FWIW, being a recreation of speedily deleted material isn't, by itself, a reason for deletion, especially when the deletion reason was "attack page," which this is clearly not (though maybe the previous page was so butchered that it looked like one). Being unwilling to answer your efforts at discussion, though, is not a good sign.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 02:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: True, and I agree that being a recreation isn't solely a good reason, but given that it was recreated within an hour of being speedily deleted (whether properly or not) makes me wonder if there isn't a SPA or promotional account. And admittedly, the language isn't NPOV, or at least doesn't appear to be so. Frmatt (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete. It's a long shot, but I'm going on for no context. It explains what it's for, but not only fails to give background (a dicdef by right), but fails also to give context to the already brief definition, in my opinion. I'll hold to delete if that's refused by the admins. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 04:08, 22 January 2010 (UTC), modified for structure 05:28, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete madeup thing. JBsupreme (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anna Lincoln 09:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Armbrust (talk) 10:42, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Snow Speedy Delete. This seems to be in the same category as the efforts of so many high schoolers to get whatever they made up in class into Wikipedia. I'd go with a combination of no context and, though it's not a specific CSD category, an unremarkable term re: the above comments. If I had to guess, I think this was made up in school one day...it just happened to be the professor making it up rather than the students.Tyrenon (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2010 (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.