Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soy boy

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Consensus not to delete. Merge is possible. Tone 08:17, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soy boy[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Soy boy (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)

I don't know why this was moved from draft space to article space; it's little more than a sort of dictionary definition with explanations from one or two reliable sources--but that they explain it doesn't make it encyclopedically notable. Note also that 2/3 of the "History" section is completely irrelevant, and that the "Public perception" part merely lists the sources and provides editorial commentary on them. I don't know if Wiktionary has an entry, but that's where it might belong--not here. Drmies (talk) 01:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • We have a bunch of articles for slang terms with roughly analogous levels of notability; see the see also sections of beta male (slang) and the pages it leads to. Perhaps they all need to go, but I don't see soy boy as out of place among them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at WP:WORDISSUBJECT and the available sources, I'm moving to keep. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:38, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative keep. There are reliable sources that contain in-depth discussion about the term soy boy, rather than just usages of the term, so I think this passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. Besides the sources in the article I found the following:[1][2][3][4][5] – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Alex Henderson (November 15, 2018). "Inside the 'soy boy' conspiracy theory: It combines misogyny and the warped world of pseudoscience". Salon. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  2. ^ Jeremy Rose (November 8, 2017). "'Soy boy' is the alt-right's new most biting insult". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  3. ^ "Online culture wars and the science of soy boys". Diggit Magazine. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  4. ^ Natalie Dunn (November 9, 2018). "The term 'soy boy' is popular with the far right. But here's why the phrase is problematic itself". Medium.com. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
  5. ^ Ellen Scott (October 28, 2017). "What is a soy boy?". Metro. Retrieved September 15, 2020.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:00, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources given are reliable and show in-depth coverage Spiderone 08:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somewhat reluctant keep — I would have loved for this to be a mere dicdef, but alas there is enough encyclopaedic substance for an article under WP:WORDISSUBJECT, and the sources (incl. the ones listed above) are pretty strong, so it ought to stay. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Effeminacy#The_effects_of_chemicals which is much the same topic. The point of WP:DICDEF is that topics are "grouped into articles based on what they are, not what they are called by". It's a matter of correct consolidation, not deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep articles such as the Salon one linked by Lord Bolingbroke and the Independent one in the article show this is a topic that has been covered sufficiently for an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:00, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: With sources indicated above, the article easily passes WP:WORDISSUBJECT. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 06:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Effeminacy per Andrew. There are some news and blog articles covering it, just like there are about basically any popular insult. The topic here seems to be Beta male (slang) (or Sissy or some sense of gender role, or I'm sure there are a lot more that cover effectively the same pejorative) plus some pseudoscience about phytoestrogen, which is better covered elsewhere. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 05:17, 29 September 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Soy_boy&oldid=981101885"