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 no consensus. Discussion regarding the article's content and scope can continue on its talk page, as can notions about a page move (to change the article's tile) or a merge. Per the discussion herein, I have added the ((Cleanup AfD)) template to the article's lead. (Non-administrator closure) NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:43, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Feminist stripper (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)

Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I cannot find the term "feminist stripper" in any of the 20 sources given in the article. (All but three of the sources have URLs, and I searched all 17 of the others.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:29, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Lightbreather. Capitalismojo (talk) 01:32, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a combination of original research and synthesis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This started out as a personal bibliography of feminist views of stripping and sex work. I think we can all agree that Feminist stripper is an utterly unacceptable title. How far off would it be if this were retitled Feminist views of stripping and sex work, I wonder... Carrite (talk) 04:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think an article under that title, built using those sources, might have some value. This article under this title doesn't. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:24, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is odd that the Sex-positive feminism article does not include the word "stripper," and the Stripper article doesn't include the word "feminist." I might see merging this article (feminist stripper) into the sex-positive feminist article. (The stripper article is already over 7,000 words, but the SPF article is less than half that size.) Lightbreather (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ImprovingWiki (talk) 08:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, legitimate term as per academic journal Journal of International Women's Studies (2013) and book Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women and the Rise of Raunch Culture (2006), more at http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Feminist+stripper%22. In addition, when searching for the term in the singular, loads more results for Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. — Cirt (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The "loads more" I see are: Twitter, geeksandcleats.com, blacksportsonline.com, lockerdome.com, barstoolsports.com, sportsmaster.com, assorted minor blogs, and a question asked at feminist.com. There may be dozens of hits, but taken together, nothing that meets WP:GNG. Lightbreather (talk) 20:33, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of International Women's Studies: zero that I found. [1] Same at elsevier.com and sciencedirect.com, which have Women's Studies International Forum (formerly Women's Studies International Quarterly). You can find articles with the words "feminist" and "stripper" - but not "feminist stripper." Lightbreather (talk) 20:43, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: There's even an entire study titled Feminist Stripper: A Call to Arms : Convention and Counter-practice in Erotic Performance (2011), by Marianna Leishman of the University of Sydney Department of Gender and Cultural Studies. — Cirt (talk) 17:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW: You can download a copy of Leishman's 123-page research paper (uploaded under her stage name, Zahra Stardust) at academia.edu. I can't find evidence that it was peer reviewed. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per Cirt's arguments; if its a legitimate expresswion it passes notability and deserves an article. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 18:51, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does one book a legitimate expression make? In 2009, The Sydney Morning Herald said of Leishman (stage name Zahra Stardust): Feminist pole dancer Sex Party candidate for Bradfield. Ms Stardust, a law graduate whose real name is Marianna Leishman, has a colourful resume. Among stints at the United Nations and an ongoing masters degree, the feminist 'Gen Y' writer also twirls fire, teaches pole dancing and swings from a trapeze for a living. Lightbreather (talk) 21:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I'm not sure what's going on with this AFD but the context has changed mid-discussion and people's comments were changed so as to amend the meaning of subsequent comments. To my mind, there is a big difference between Feminist strippers (plural) which describes a group of people (inaccurately) with potential BLP violations to boot and Feminist stripper (singular) which is a concept; a descriptor which an individual might feel applies to their views with regard to both "feminism" and "stripping". One is a potentially pejorative collective noun and the other is an academic subject. I have far less of a problem with the academic concept of the "feminist stripper" provided it is backed up by solid research. I still think, "a combination of original research and synthesis" accurately describes the content of the current article under the new title but I have no f**king clue what we're actually discussing now (and I've struck my !vote). As discussed above, there is a notable concept here but not at the original title or with the original content. Hacking it up and trying to move it to a new title seems pointless when we have the option to simply start again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 20:55, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with reserve meaning that I'm voting to delete until more sources specifically mentioning 'feminist strippers' or the concept of a 'feminist stripper' is demonstrated. I've access to JSTOR, and while the documents do mention stripping and feminism, they don't connect the dots like our WP:NOR policy demonstrates that they should. Tutelary (talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Cirt, the content problems can be fixed. If it's deleted so will the motivation to improve the coverage of the topic, it will simply dissapear. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:33, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but consider changing title. This article addresses an interesting intersection between a profession that some consider anti-women, with women in that profession who hold strong pro-feminist ideals. It has many reliable sources pertinent to the topic. I haven't reviewed the citations in detail, but if they are solid, then this article should remain.Mattnad (talk) 16:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a subject amply described in reliable sources to warrant an article per WP:GNG. While there seems to be a need to address the article's title and perhaps its scope, that is not a reason for deletion. We have articles for feminist views of pornography and feminist views on prostitution, but this is the only one on the intersection of feminism and stripping. As the articles for stripper, striptease, and strip club do not yet mention feminism, deleting this article would pretty much erase the entire idea from Wikipedia. gobonobo ^{+ c} 16:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep because the topic has plenty of reliable sources per WP:GNG. I'm neutral on the name change. But I encourage everyone here to keep it on their watchlist to get rid of BLP violations. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥
• Delete / merge I notice the term "feminist stripper" seems pretty much agreed upon as original thought. I don't see how this justifies it's own article. Seems we could just add a section to the article Stripper regarding stereotypes of strippers and the literature on those who do not conform to those stereotypes. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:16, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The article is an exercise in WP:SYNTH. While the phrase turns up in various places, nothing in the sourcing provided here establishes either that the term has a generally accepted meaning that corresponds to what is said in this article, or that the sources actually address the concept of the "feminist stripper" as opposed to the occupation generally. It reads like a term paper or a sociology class assignment. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 18 October 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.