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. Michig (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NeuroGenderings Network[edit]

The NeuroGenderings Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

This article is about an organization, which studies a neologism for which there there is no consensus on terminology or definition. It uses words such as "neurosexism" and "neurofeminism" though these do not appear in the common lexicon and do not appear prevalent in related literature. it does not define them or provide links to corresponding wikipedia articles which do define them. This suggests the theories are fringe and do not meet Wikipedia's general criteria for inclusion of academic,organizations and topics. Ethanpet113 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As the creator of the article I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. The OP has opened an AfD on The NeuroGenderings Network but has then argued a case against 2 redirects.

• Neurosexism already existed as a redirect to the "contents" section of Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender diff, I think this is a better place for it.
• Neurofeminism is indeed a neologism based a paper by Sigrid Schmitz and Grit Höppner Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research, it does not warrant its own article, it does not have its own article, it's a redirect with no other links - just in case anyone specifically looks up "Neurofeminism".

The OP previously added the following templates to this article: COI, Confusing, Context, Hoax, Notability, Primary sources, keep going Recentism and Self-published - there were no corresponding talk messages to any of them diff. Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, there was an WP:A7 PROD (diff) as well! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There were more references available about the conferences and the organization than I had expected. I'm satisfied that notability is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter:Is the existence of a conference for which the notability of its contents is not well established sufficient to consider it encyclopedic? Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four international conferences, held every four years - Sweden (2010); Vienna (2012); Switzerland (2014); and the US (2016). Are you now arguing that this article should go because it is not notable, that would contradict your opening post? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist: Again I ask: Does the existence of a conference when its impact cannot be determined to be notable make it encyclopedic? There are many academic conferences held all the time that are suspect see Predatory open-access publishing. If the topics in question had more peer review I would consider it notable, but as the primary discussed topics Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, seem to only redirect to this article, I find this dubious.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the organization is established by reliable secondary sources providing coverage of its activities. XOR'easter (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanpet113: Even though you've been an editor since 2012, the first 5 years you've averaged roughly a dozen edits a year and about 1,000 edits in total, so I'm going to talk to you as if you're a newbie.

• If you have an issue with the redirect page "Neurosexism" click on this link and add your comments to the talk page there or create an AfD there.
• If you have an issue with the redirect page "Neurofeminism" click on this link and add your comments to the talk page there or create an AfD there.
• If you want to take an AfD on both redirect pages and "The NeuroGenderings Network" then you ought to have followed the instructions for WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion

As it stands, this AfD that you have begun is for "The NeuroGenderings Network" and only "The NeuroGenderings Network". As such your OP should spell out what your objection(s) are to that article. From Before nominating: checks and alternatives: The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

You might also benefit from reading the essay - Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content which probably explains why your proposal WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Degradation of Sociology Related Pages - Recommend Mass Protection Upgrades wasn't taken up. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. There are several academic sources discussing this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On google scholar there are only a total of 81, mostly primary sources dealing with the keyword neurogenderings, there are more for neurosexiam and neurofeminism, but that has nothing to do with the existence or relevance of this conference. If you believe neurosexism and neurofeminism to be encyclopedic, by all means to create articles about them and remove the redirects to this page, but that does not result in this conference being encyclopedic.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, redirect to this article, which is about a conference or organization,not the topics, so they are not adequate to establish notability if you believe the conference or organization meet wikipedia's criteria of notability for inclusion, then it logically follows that it must be about the genesis of these topics. If the topics are indeed notable, please establish the topics as separate articles articles, for which some secondary sources may be found. Right now as it stand the article appears to be about a one time event, and the majority of the citations are primary sources.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:DISCUSSAFD "How to contribute" When participating, please consider the following: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.

In any case, has your rationale for deletion changed again? Is it now on the grounds of primary sources? If so then out of 22 refs there is only one (the list of members) from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the primary source) in the entire article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take your meaning, there are many reasons why this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Most crucially that WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6,7 WP:NOTJOURNAL#9 and WP:PRESSRELEASEWP:SOAP. It may be possible that Neurofeminism and Neurosexism have a place on the encyclopedia, but right now the relevance of this group to any particular topic is difficult to establish. Instead of deletion, perhaps it should be moved into draft space until the requisite articles on the topics in question have been created.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article defines "neurofeminism" and "neurosexism", so it is reasonable that those redirect to it. As for the "one time event", it's happened four times.

I do not see how WP:NOTDIRECTORY criterion 6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations") or 7 ("Simple listings without context information") apply at all. The entities being listed — conferences, people and references — all have an evident context. The article is not a case study (WP:NOTJOURNAL #9). Nor does it read as a promotion or a press release (WP:SOAP); I re-wrote the introduction based on newspaper coverage of it to make sure of this. XOR'easter (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have 4 new basis to try and delete the article - none of them relevant or mentioned in the OP. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my earlier statement about the possible merit of the article Neurosexism it appears that article previously existed twice but has yet to produce something sufficiently coherent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neurosexism. Perhaps the editors on that article might have some input.@Tyrenon, Frmatt, DennisTheTiger, Anna Lincoln, JBsupreme, Armbrust, Glenfarclas, and PburkaSL93:Hello editors, sorry to bother you, but needed some input on the notability of the article Neurosexism and it's associate body of researchers the The NeuroGenderings Network which this now seems to redirect to. We noted your participation in the deletion discussion of Neurosexism, and were wondering if you might have some input on the encyclopedic merits of informal bodies associated with it. Thank you for your timeEthanpet113 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is for The NeuroGenderings Network not the redirect page Neurosexism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious breach of WP:CANVASSING I have therefore put in a request to administrators to close this AfD. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Struck through my own comment. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who was not pinged correctly in the list above was the one who suggested an alternative to deletion — making Neurosexism into a redirect to Cordelia Fine. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and it dates back to January 2010 when there was no article for Fine. Fine's blp was created in September 2010, the redirect of Neurosexism was created as a link to an article about Fine's book, Delusions of Gender in February 2017 diff.

Fascinating as all of that may be, the statement to the editors who were pinged requests, some input on the notability of the article Neurosexism. Why? There is no article for Neurosexism. Ethanpet113 knows this - he has posted a link to the successful deletion discussion. What he is arguing now is an AfD for the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurosexism&redirect=no In which case that is where the AfD should have been taken out. Finally the description of The NeuroGenderings Network as an informal body - when it has held 4 international conferences and has professors and leading neuroscientists at its core - is quite quite ridiculous. This AfD is a simple case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, the OP has declared his intention to get rid of anything he doesn't like here: WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Degradation of Sociology Related Pages - Recommend Mass Protection Upgrades. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping it would be self evident that there is very little material on this subject matter available and therefore its lack of notability should be obvious, but you’ve started to call me name so be it. I’ll start evaluation every citation in and outside the article, using the criteria for inclusion. This section may change over time as I complete my evaluaiton.

The coverage in Le Temps, Libération, Der Standard and Forskning.no is more than enough to establish notability. I would also count the two sources from the Neuroethics Blog, since that is the official site of an academic group — it is hosted under the auspices of a university and appears to operate with editorial oversight. Unlike many scientific organizations, even many respectable ones, this group clears the GNG with room to spare. As I said at the beginning, I originally expected there to be much less material available. My first inclination would have been to recommend a merge per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE, perhaps to one of the articles on the founding members, which is still a viable (but now unnecessary) course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I should note that it's not unusual for coverage about scientific societies and suchlike groups to get swamped by sources by them. This is the natural consequence of scientists proving their productivity by writing papers. For example, finding sources about the history of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics was a bit of a nightmare, because it required sifting through the vast amount of literature published by SIAM. This group is smaller and newer, but one should expect the same dynamic to be at work. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but you’ve started to call me name so be it - where have you been called names? Anyway the sources that you are labelling "primary" in your table do not come from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the only primary source in the article). You have mentioned WP:UGC, WP:SELFSOURCE as "violations" as it does not meet Wikipedia’s standard of verifiability. Actually, WP:SELFSOURCE (which is an exception to WP:UGC) states, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. - The source has been used to provide the current list of members, so no "violation" there. I've made a few tweaks to your table to make it more readable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, journal articles by members of the network are "primary" sources, albeit vetted by a review process — but we don't rely on those to establish notability, only to indicate what the network members themselves have said. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP has defined primary as This citation is a by someone affiliated with the topic and is therefore invalid for establishing notability under WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY sources are defined as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. The topic is the network rather than neurofeminism / neurosexism in and of itself. The notable academic voices which contradict network members also matter. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, re:excluded citations. The citations in question according to the the article body are notes made by network members after the fact. So (1)I don't disagree that the opposite opinion could help establish notability.(2)As presented in the article body I do not currently see the commentary as being reciprocal. Citing responses of the critiqued scientists may help.(3)If there is a response, that is adequate to establish notability of the network member, but unless the respondent specifically mentions the "network", then notability isn't transitive viz. WP:INHERITORGEthanpet113 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to the Neuroethics Blog are miscategorized in the table above. See WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG; WP:UGC is irrelevant. Nor is the Wills (2017) reference merely a "trivial" mention; he spends a substantial chunk of it discussing an activity of the NeuroGenderings Network, to wit, the journal special issue devoted to their conference proceedings. Plenty of academic conference proceedings get less attention than that. In addition, the table above criticizes Caselles (2018) for being a "trivial mention" (it isn't), and because it "points to user generated content", which is apparently code for "cites the organization's website". It cites primary sources and discusses their content, making it a secondary source. That reference is not yet in the article, but it should be, because it would benefit the article's coverage of its subject. As for why the "2016 seed grants" page was cited — you state that you "can't actually establish why this was cited at all, maybe the page used to say something of not [sic]" — by clicking the collapsed section headings, one can reveal that it establishes the 2016 meeting was hosted at Barnard College and provides commentary on how the group wishes to improve itself. In summary, the tabulation above, though lengthy, is of no use in evaluating the sourcing of this article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I don't understand why "the conference" and "a conference" keeps being used to describe four seperate international conferences - Sweden (2010); Vienna (2012); Switzerland (2014); and the US (2016) - can that be corrected please? We also now have yet another reason for deletion being cited: WP:INHERITORG. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, reference 24 is called "promotional". A conference program is not an advertisement in the sense of that guideline. In principle, linking to the website of an upcoming conference could be promotional — a way of drumming up business, bringing in more registration fees — but that link is to the program of the 2014 conference, an event well past. There's no product to buy. All that link does is provide some extra information about an organization already demonstrated notable by secondary sources. It seems that WP:SPAM joins WP:INHERITORG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:SOAP among the guidelines thrown against the wall here in the hope that one of them will stick. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Passes WP:GNG. Covered in multiple reliable sources, including books. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think the detailed discussion above clearly points towards notability. /Julle (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (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.