Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oppression olympics

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. Euryalus (talk) 04:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppression olympics

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

I am not sure if this should be deleted or not, however I still nominate it b/c: a) It is presented using a lot of scientific speech without including scientific sources b) It reads like a political essay, c) sources include YouTube and tumblr pages and d) the user who created this article has also created Special snowflake, which is also up for deletion. Laber□^T 16:47, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it violates WP:ESSAY and no evidence has been given that it is a widely used phrase. The former by itself would be excusable as AFD is not cleanup but the latter pushes me towards the delete side. Compared to "special snowflake" which has widespread use in many sources and contexts, this does not. Smartyllama (talk) 18:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom and WP:ESSAY. I agree with Smartyllama's logic ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:54, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've removed the unreferenced POV essay and added a referenced explanation from "Queering Anarchism: Addressing and Undressing Power and Desire". This is a political science topic. It relates to identity politics and what is called "intersectionality". See also: "Triple oppression" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anticla rutila (talk • contribs) 07:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure about the relevance, but at least now it won't need a rewrite if it is kept. WP:ESSAY no longer applies. --Laber□^T 14:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with Anticla rutila's fixes it does not read like essay anymore, and topic seems to have sufficient notability.--Staberinde (talk) 15:38, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure that the reasons given for deletion are particularly valid. AfD is not cleanup, and at any rate the article appears to have been improved somewhat since nomination. Nor is infrequency of use necessarily the same as non-notability: probably "subaltern studies" is not a widely used phrase, but it is notable. Potentially one source which isn't in the current article is this from the Washington Post. There's also this book (if the Gbooks link doesn't work, it's Hancock 2011, Solidarity Politics for Millenials: A Guide to Ending the Oppression Olympics); and potentially this... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 15:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for those leads Cecil, I read through each one. I introduced an observation from Ange-Marie Hancock's book. Anticla rutila (talk) 12:56, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article should definitely be improved; at the moment both knowyourmeme.com and Geek Feminism Wiki are explaining the concept much better than this article. That said, there can be no doubt that "oppression olympics" is by now a well-established term among activists and scholars in the humanities and social sciences. 58,000 Google hits, including 374 in Google Scholar and 672 in Google Books should put notability beyond reasonable doubt. --Jimmy Fleischer (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft instead if needed as this is still questionable and would be best put aside for better improvements. SwisterTwister talk 06:32, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 19:45, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article in its current form isn't terribly well written, but can be improved. Moreover, we clearly have reliable references testifying to the existence of this concept. Midnightblueowl (talk) 11:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been rewritten, is using scholarly sources, and the concept is likely notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:53, 9 May 2016 (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.