Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecomasculinity: Difference between revisions

Ecomasculinity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

I do not see this being a distinctive encyclopedic topic that passes the threshold of WP:NOTDICT. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:59, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and Environment. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:45, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: While the article right now is a stub, a search for additional sources looks like there should be enough to make the topic notable and to expand the article. For example: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. NHCLS (talk) 02:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment. I don’t believe your vote addresses WP:NOTDICT, WP:DICDEF, or WP:NEO.

  These wikipedia policies say that not every single word must have an article. This holds especially true for the working jargon of people writing essays. Most importantly, I do not see this word being tied to a distinctive encyclopedic topic, just as a neologism crafted for a particular university essay. If it were a dedicated article, I believe it would turn quickly into a coatrack: this term does not have widespread secondary coverage. So, it means something completely different in one essay versus another and anyone can have an unchecked say about what it is about.

  For example:

  industrial/breadwinner masculinities have come at terrible costs to the living planet and ecomodern masculinities have failed us as well, men included.

  We argue that ecological masculinities will foster increased care and resilience among men and communities when rebuilding local through to global livelihoods after a disaster.

  They talk about different stuff, and so I have strong doubts that facts about this topic can pass WP:V and that Wikipedia editors can create an article without WP:SYNTH taking those essays, schoolwork and opinion pieces at face value. Historyexpert2 (talk) 23:23, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you might be understating the nature of those links I offered in caling them “essays, schoolwork and opinion pieces” – four of the eight I listed are chapters in academic books (1, 2, 3, and 6), all from different authors and from three different books. Two of remaining four (7 and 8) are from peer-reviewed journals, and 5 is a conference presentation from an academic. Only 4 is an opinion piece (written by an academic). It also seems to me as if all these eight sources are addressing the same topic – from the introduction of 6, “this chapter seeks to fill a void in the literature by underscoring how a gender sensitive perspective of ecological disasters can be integrated in recovery efforts,” and from 1, “Here, they explore ways that masculinities can advocate and embody broader, deeper and wider care for the global through to local (‘glocal’) commons. Ecological Masculinities works with the wisdoms of four main streams of influence that have come before us. They are: masculinities politics, deep ecology, ecological feminism and feminist care theory” – they’re both about examining the relationship between gender and ecology, and building a pro-ecological masculinity. On top of that, the WP:NOTDICT guideline says that “Each article in an encyclopedia is about a person, a people, a concept, a place, an event, a thing, etc., whereas a dictionary entry is primarily about a word, an idiom, or a term and its meaning(s), usage and history” – it seems to me as if there is more than enough scholarship and secondary coverage about concepts of ecomasculinity to build an article discussing those concepts, and not simply defining the term. NHCLS (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  Based on what you presented, I do not see an indication that this passes WP:NOTNEO:

  A neologism is a word that is still in the process of becoming accepted into mainstream language.

  If you have a source showing that this is word is accepted in common vocabulary or even in academic discourse beyond this group of students, let me know. Also I am concerned that those sources, like [1] where the authors “introduce the concept of ecomasculinities” fail WP:I, WP:PRIMARY and that attempts to glue them together would result in a coatrack.

  The page currently cites: Toward New EcoMasculinities, EcoGenders, and EcoSexualities. Do you think we should make an “Eco Gender” and “Eco Sexuality” article even if they appear as keywords in six Google Scholar entries? Historyexpert2 (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are you getting the idea these are from students? As far as I can tell, every single one of those eight sources that I offered are written by professors, with doctorates. And I would say that if someone could find enough reliable sources (like, for example, peer-reviewed academic sources) discussing concepts of “eco gender” and “eco sexuality” to build an article about them, then yes, I would vote to keep Wikipedia articles about those. NHCLS (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]