Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femtech

Femtech

Femtech (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)

Not a notable term, WP:NEO. Power~enwiki (talk) 06:12, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ʍaɦʋɛօtʍ (talk) 09:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:10, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep per Google News results and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: the number of sources using the term suggests it is already a notable term. PamD 16:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
• Keep: Not a neologism, but rather is well-covered in multiple independent sources, clearly GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
• Delete - A neologism isn't negated by the fact that multiple independent sources use the term. See the definition at neologism. The google results are all trivial and discuss femtech in a less than significant way. But WP is already a random collection of neologisms so I don't see this being deleted. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:48, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please try to consider WP:DICTDEF as well.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Α Guy into Books™ § (Message) -  19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG. Though its usage is relatively new, such usages (like "chick flick") do not go away once they have reached this level of easily demonstrable significant independent highly RS coverage. This is the digital age, and technology is only going to increase, not decrease. Softlavender (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2017 (UTC)