Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Femtech

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. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Femtech

(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)[reply]

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

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

Keep per Google News results and WP:GNG. Hmlarson (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: the number of sources using the term suggests it is already a notable term. PamD 16:11, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Not a neologism, but rather is well-covered in multiple independent sources, clearly GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 03:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Keep. This is a new term, but clearly one that meets WP:GNG in terms of verifiability and independent sources over time. I learned something new by reading this starter article and gained access to useful, reliable new reference materials - and that's the spirit of the encyclopedia that I appreciate and would like to contribute to as I learn more. Shameran81 (talk) 23:33, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Many terms in technology are pretty recent and so would it be sort of Neologistic like other technological terms. This one does not look much different since some reliable sources seem to be present for it (like Forbes and I see something from Berkley on it when I searched google) and the policy on that is that terms need to have very little or no coverage in reliable sources in order to be eliminated. Probably this term may gain some currency in the future as more women get involved with technologies.Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep easily meets GNG, Sadads (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2017 (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.