Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tone policing

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. Sandstein 13:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tone policing

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

This article has only two cited sources and relatively biased content, out of tone with the rest of the wiki. 141.114.194.83 (talk) 04:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of above IP editor--text copied from article talk page. I'll note the irony of complaining about the "tone" of the article, but otherwise I'll withhold my !vote until a later date. --Finngall ^talk 15:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ a neologism that has about as little support as a snowflake. My gNews search [1]. To keep a political neologism we need substantive consideration of such a term in RS media, substantive discussion form public intellectuals, and scholarly consideration. The strongest source I came up with is The Myth of Tone Policing, from that right-wing rag, The Harvard Crimson. [2] For the curious, the Crimson columnist points to the "seminal" source on the topic, published in Everyday Feminism, here: [3]. Impressive propaganda, and, clearly the people pushing this meme/neologism make some valid and telling points. However, undergrad newspaper columnists do not suffice to establish notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I searched for sources, it's often the most efficient way to assess short, new articles on little known topics, neologisms in particular. I see now that there are 2 books referenced in the article. I continue to think that this is too think to pass the bar.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep on the condition that it can be rewritten without the soapboxing. Same issue as the more fleshed-out Generation Snowflake. A neologism article for a word used by critics should focus on the neologism at hand, not the those who use it. That is, answer the question "What is tone policing?" rather than "Who is guilty of tone policing?" or "Who claims to have been tone-policed?". Jergling (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Generation Snowflake might be an efficient and reasonable resolution. {ping|Jergling}, What thinkest thou?E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory, I'd have to disagree with that. They're both petty, politically charged terms that have unfortunately entered the popular lexicon, but they mean very different things. "Tone policing" is usually used in leftist internal critique, while "snowflake generation" is a right-wing pejorative for young liberals. Neither are particularly strong critiques. I'd be all for merging tone policing to ad hominem or a similar fallacy. Jergling (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a much used neologism. Bearian (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that WP:WORDISSUBJECT is the guideline.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Changing my vote to tepid keep. Very tepid because the term has not entered the general conversation; rather, it is in use within a narrow bandwidth of academic and political activism. Nevertheless, it is arguable useful to have terms that many users will need ot look up, and ~ 50 users per day were coming to this page before the AFD started, an indication that it is useful.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Conceptually interesting as an ad hominem and a distraction technique to try to win an argument. Also material from the external links could be used.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 24 November 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.