Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lookism

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 (non-admin closure) --Jakob (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lookism

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

Article does not meet notability guidelines for neologisms, should be deleted on that demerit, alone. In addition, the article presents the following issues: article is written in a feminocentric tone; some sources may show bias; article may draw its own conclusions. Rat Meat (talk) 16:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep Several thousand GBook hits, and I expect I would find the same thing in the scholarly literature. The article may be junk but it's a notable topic. Mangoe (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A notable topic that has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Source examples: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]. Many more sources exist. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as per NorthAmerica. 1292simon (talk) 01:53, 8 June 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.