Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iron Lady

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 redirect to Margaret Thatcher. There seems to be a clear supermajority in favour of redirection, and Neve-selbert's policy-rooted arguments are persuasive and largely unrebutted. For the somewhat awkward tangle of pages associated with the AFD, I intend to do the following: The Iron Lady already exists and is a redirect to the Thatcher article; I'm going to make Iron Lady do just the same. There is already a link to Iron Lady (disambiguation) at the top of the Thatcher article, so I'm going to leave that be. I won't delete the article, so if anyone wants to delve into Iron Lady's history to do a selective merge, the data is there. A Traintalk 09:19, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Contents about the nickname's history have been abridged and merged into Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady nickname. Some notable female politicians have been listed at the dab page. — JFG talk 14:22, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Lady

[edit]
Iron Lady (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)

This is a rather dispensable article. Considering the fact that Thatcher is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for an "Iron Lady", having a section listing basically every single other female world leader (and other female diplomats) since her tenure is pretty trivial and unnecessary, and likely runs into WP:LC. I would propose a merge of half the article (i.e. parts of the lede, along with sections 1 and 2) to Margaret Thatcher in a new section (e.g. #The Iron Lady subsection, under a #Nicknames section), given that we already have #The Iron Duke (under #Nicknames) with Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington. --Neve–selbert 19:25, 13 September 2016 (UTC) Changed vote, redirect to Margaret Thatcher as per WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT.--Nevé–selbert 17:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America1000 04:43, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unencyclopedic garbage. This article drives a coach and horses through WP:NOR, WP:NOT and even WP:V (with its poorly sourced and unsourced material). It also has a strong stench of sexism to it; this is basically a list of almost all female world leaders, all of whom have been lazily compared by a male-dominated media with Margaret Thatcher, some, as the article says, retrospectively. Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Per DGG, there is definitely nothing worth merging there. --John (talk) 10:35, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The potentially valuable part of this article may be the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied. If it is ill-sourced, the need is to tag it for that not delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It seems particularly useful for readers who see it applied to other women, as it now often is (as mentioned in the lead, at least until very recently, and now re-mentioned by me) and want to know more about it. In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged. This expression exists beyond Thatcher. The article probably needs improvement (sources, balancement) and other warnings but the redirect proposal is not the best option.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just listing people the term's been used of. Perfect material for the disambiguation page. Mr. Magoo (talk) 16:11, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Disambiguation page are string-based. They shouldn't contain content or act as de facto article. You loose all the sources for the use of the term, and they're crucial to avoid original research. And if you keep those sources you're not doing a disambiguation page, you're writing an article, in the end. So you're just stuffing material of an article in a disambiguation pages. A strategy I consider on the long-term confusing for both editors and readers. The most simple strategy IMHO is to keep the article about "iron lady" and let it grow over time like millions of other articles.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Or Wiktionary is a perfect compromise, have a look at wikt:win one for the Gipper. The Gipper redirects to the George Gipp article, even though this is a pretty common nickname for Ronald Reagan. Other than Margaret Thatcher, who else is widely known as an "Iron Lady"? Golda Meir? First off, that nickname was used to describe her posthumously. And second, notice the "of Israeli politics" people add after when people use it to describe Meir. Pretty much nobody in general refers to Thatcher as "the Iron Lady of British politics", she is the "Iron Lady" full stop, period. Lastly I should note that this article has been around for a while. There is no indication this article has any realistic potential to improve in the future. What else is there to add, anyway? Wiktionary seems to be the best route forward, al a modus vivendi.--Nevé–selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The section for Political Usage doesn't really have content, just similar listings of usage as in the disambig. page for Iron Duke. Sure, the disambig. pages seem to disallow sources, but the articles for the people mentioned should carry that burden. Mr. Magoo (talk) 19:40, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Not from the practical point of view. I mean a "list" of related articles/concepts exist even if the sources and content are in another article. The rationale is not the fact that you can have a disambiguation, but if a list has a use per se. First of all, a disambiguation should not list all the minor and similar titles. Even for the "simple" "iron lady" you can have enough sources to cite a woman in a brief ns0 list but not to put it in a disambiguation page as it is clearly not the main use, and distracting. And for sure you can't put things such as "titan lady" there. And as a reader this minor occurrences are in any case useful and it's what I (and many other people) open wikipedia for... Secondly, "ns0 lists" and disambiguation pages are two distinct concept. The first one is to have a theme-based overview, the second one to find articles based on a similar string. It should be avoided to mix them because it looks "simpler". It's not. I go to the disambiguation page to find a book or film or place titled "iron lady", I read a list in ns0 when I want to know something more about a concept. The nickname is a concept. As a reader, I need the list here.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you be a bit clearer, please? ns0 list? As in not in main space? Most of the variants in our current article are nicknames which seemingly have no relation like Steel Butterfly, "the only man in" and Attila the Hen. The article for this term could be feasibly kept either here or at Wiktionary, but Iron Lady should nonetheless redirect to Thatcher due to overwhelming amount of coverage using it as a synonym for her. Mr. Magoo (talk) 08:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must note that the three dissenting voices to this Afd make their cases pretty poorly. Firstly, I should like to turn to Peterkingiron's argument and his making the dubious case that the list of people to whom the epithet has been applied is "potentially valuable". This is faulty logic that has already been discredited hitherto. Cutting to the chase, Margaret Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, take Google Books for credence: there are around 40,600 results that "Iron Lady" garners, of which all the results of the first page save just one pertain to the British stateswoman. Searching "Iron Lady" AND "Thatcher" garners 25,600 results and only loses around 15,000. Yet searching for "Iron Lady" -"Thatcher" loses around 10,000 results (with a negligible 15,600 garnered in total instead), and even this may be a slight exaggeration given how Thatcher is self-evidently alluded to in at least two of the results received on the first page. Having read WP:EVERYTHING, this pretty much nails it. Secondly, Tlhslobus's arguments: stating that "it [Iron Lady] now often is" used to apply to other women. This statement pretty much flies in the face of WP:WEIGHT without shame. He then goes on to say that In this respect it seems different from Iron Duke, as that nickname is seemingly not routinely applied to large numbers of other people. This "large numbers of other people" claim is (as I gladly concur with John) simply media-driven drivel and borderline sexism. Both Fernando Álvarez de Toledo, 3rd Duke of Alba and Luís Alves de Lima e Silva, Duke of Caxias have been widely described by various reputable sources also as "Iron Dukes", yet this does not in any way negate the fact that Wellington is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. (If you want Google Books statistics for Iron Duke, I will be happy to present you the facts.) You then go on to say, Incidentally, perhaps partly but seemingly not entirely as a result of recent amendments, it now at least appears unusually well-sourced compared to many Wikipedia articles. That is a woefully inadequate "Well, at least it's not as bad as that article" case-in-point, that does neither side any favours and fails WP:OTHERCONTENT. For Alexmar983 who stated that the paragraph "Political usage" cannot be merged without reasoning, I cannot help but retort: "Why ever not?" Just why not? Although I admit I am warming to the option of just redirecting the article to Margaret Thatcher saving the trouble of us merging, I just cannot understand at all why a merge would be impractical. I urge you to re-read my rationale per the precedent with Wellington. You then go on to state that This expression exists beyond Thatcher. Yup, as does The Iron Duke and a great many other nicknames of which I feel free to state, but as Mr. Magoo and McBarker correctly alludes, "if it [a term] has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term" a topic is primary for that term. Rather simple and clearly straightforward, I should think. In conclusion, I would like to note Caeciliusinhorto's very constructive comment. If this page gets redirected? We certainly have the option of either (a) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Margaret Thatcher, (b) merging a proportion of the article's contents to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or (c) creating a new Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for this article's deletion. I would like to stress again that there is nothing unreasonable about this Afd proposal in terms of WP:NOHARM and WP:ADDSVALUE. In a nutshell, this request aims to be a wise housekeeping measure through removing indiscriminate and superfluous information that is already mostly included at Margaret Thatcher and elsewhere.--Nevé–selbert 23:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Reply:
  • Point partly conceded regarding Iron Duke. Although the cited couple of long-dead Dukes are not the same as about 20 (and counting) mostly living female political leaders, the Google Books stats are 26,700 for "Iron Duke" and Wellington, and 121,000 for "Iron Duke" without Wellington. I'm not clear how much weight is meant to be given to such stats.
  • I'm not clear how 15,000 out of 40,000, in other words 37.5%, is 'negligable' (for instance, David Cameron got 0.6% less than 37.5% of the vote when winning last year's general election, and about 12.9% less than 37.5% if you include those who didn't vote). (The figures I get for Google Books are 15,700 out of 40,500, which is actually slightly more than 37.5%.) And the 25,000 figure clearly includes items that briefly mention Thatcher but are actually about some other Iron Lady (and there are presumably far more of these than there are items about Thatcher that don't name her). And there are presumably plenty of foreign-language books mentioning Iron Ladies other than Thatcher in the language of those ladies, books which will not show up when googling Iron Lady in English, but which can reasonably be expected to omit Thatcher (or to mention her while actually being about some other Iron Lady) more often than books in English do. And so on.
  • I should perhaps have been less cautious in my expression of support for the unfairly criticized quality of the article's sourcing. Apart from one citation needed flag, I haven't noticed any statement that appears to lack a source, apart from one or two statements too self-evident to require sourcing per WP:V. Of course life is too short for me to check every single citation for things like reliability, but most of them are clearly reliable sources, and if one or two turn out not to be so upon closer inspection, those statements can either be tagged with a citation needed or removed, just as with every other Wikipedia article.
  • I should perhaps also have raised the matter of WP:BIAS, also known as WP:WORLDVIEW, as the proposal is arguably (in practice and presumably unintentionally) both anglocentric and sexist. This seems in effect a proposal to remove documented references to about 20 (and counting) leaders whose main characteristic seems to be that they are not British (hence anglocentrism) and female (hence sexism). Of course I'm male, and so presumably is John, who first brought up the issue of sexism here while arguing the opposite point of view to mine (see above), as seeminlgy also is the editor to whom I am replying (whose user page says he prefers to be referred to as 'he') and who seems to agree with John's version of the 'sexism' argument. I don't know where to go for 'expert' opinion on anglocentrism (I'm Irish, so perhaps unduly biased against anglocentrism; at any rate I'm no 'neutral expert' on the subject, always assuming any such persons exist). But as for sexism, I will shortly be leaving a request for comments on the matter at WP:GGTF (request now posted here). If I can be satisfied on these two issues, perhaps partly by people (especially females) from the GGTF telling me that I'm mistaken, then I would expect to switch to supporting a merge. This would presumably keep the 'Origins' stuff, but would presumably also reduce the 20 (and counting) non-British female leaders to at most perhaps 2 in at most a single sentence (or footnote?) along the lines of 'The term has since often been used to refer to other female leaders such as X(citation) and Y(citation)".
  • That said, I've spent more time on this issue than I reckon it's worth. So I hope not to be taking any further part in this discussion, apart from eventually saying something like that the GGTF people have persuaded me to switch my support to a merge, if and when they do in fact persuade me. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  11:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found this AfD clicking on "iron lady" from another figure. Finding just Thatcher would be confusing, for me and for many other readers. Stuffing Thatcher's article with mentions of other people is not very elegant for the reader as well. And BTW even if it were "overwhelming referring" to Margaret Thatcher, that does not mean it has to be merged automatically. It would be a in-depth analysis of a concept that has its own dignity, a type of spin-off that it is very common and also appropriate for encyclopedic content. It looks to me like the typical situation where you ("generic editor") try to be "simple", but you're only simplistic. These merging operations look to me like the same difference there is between properly cleaning a floor and sweeping dust under the carpet. Not a great service to the reader.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If I may ask, what figure? See WP:HATNOTE, this would circumvent any confusion. With regard to your last point, Alexmar983, see my above reply relating to WP:WIKT and how this would be a decent and rational option.--Nevé–selbert 12:55, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – A redirect to Margaret Thatcher does not comply with the purposes of redirects as the Thatcher topic deals with her biography and "Iron Lady" is now a linguistic term. Nor does a merger work because doing so cuts out the sourced WP:NOTEWORTHY material about how the term is being used with other female political leaders. Now, if one could write an article about strong-willed female leaders, along the lines of "Steel baron", then a redirect to the re-written and re-titled article would be fine. For now, though, keeping the article IAW WP:PRESERVE is the best solution. – S. Rich (talk) 01:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While the initial paragraph is about Mrs Thatcher, there is more to the article than that - the term has political meaning today which extends beyond Margaret Thatcher and the UK or even English speaking world. I agree that the article probably needs work especially around the Political Usage section but to redirect only would create confusion for those people looking only for the term, its origin and usage when not specifically considering the UK Prime Minister and deleting it would leave a gap in knowledge. Many strong women in politics become known as their countries Iron Lady and Wikipedia should provide the explanation and related uses and not merely in a disambiguation page. It needs the context and implications. For specific Wikipedia references to back this up, see WP:POFR, WP:PRESERVE, But the purpose of an encyclopedia is to provide information and WP:ADDSVALUE. It needs work but a delete or merge would make the information less accessible than it currently is. ☕ Antiqueight haver 04:25, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Srich32977 and Antiqueight: Your arguments have no strict encyclopaedic weight behind whatseover. Read WP:NOTDICTIONARY. What's wrong with merging parts of the article relating to her nickname into the Margaret Thatcher and Iron Lady (disambiguation) articles while at the same time creating a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady to make up for your other arguments relating to the phrase being used to refer to other politicians? The fact of the matter is that this phrase overwhelmingly refers to Margaret Thatcher. Per WP:WEIGHT alone, this article is unjustified as a part of this encyclopedia and is much better suited to Wiktionary. Just go and have a look at Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington#The Iron Duke. Yes, there are several known generals and the like known as an "Iron Duke", but the nickname almost exclusively refers to him alone, and hence why The Iron Duke redirects to the Duke and Iron Duke is a disambiguation page in its own right. I previously proposed having Iron Lady redirect to the WP:DAB page, but this argument had indeed been rejected by most with the argument that the DAB page almost exclusively referenced more to Thatcher than any other female leader. Moreover, searching for "Iron Lady" in Google Images shows nothing but Thatcher (albeit with the Meryl Streep portrayal of her). The overbearing background to this Afd proposal is sound, Thatcher is by far the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term. But alas, I understand your concerns. Hence why I have proposed the following three options that are infinitely better in my opinion than keeping this article the way it stands today. Note: I personally prefer the third option.
  1. Merge any useful or beneficial information to Margaret Thatcher in a new section dedicated to Nicknames as per the example with Wellington. This new section can include explanations of such epithets as Milk snatcher or Attilla the Hen as well as a couple of others perhaps, so the section wouldn't exactly be neither too spacious nor too crowded.
  2. Create a Wiktionary entry for Iron Lady. This seems entirely reasonable. Why waste an entry on Wikipedia on such meaningless drivel on so-called "Iron Ladies" that almost certainly goes on to fail WP:FALSEBALANCE. So what if there other famous politicians around the world known as an "Iron Lady"? Let's be honest here, just how frequently are such women politicians referred to as such once their careers have been fully established and respected by most commentators? How often are the likes of say Angela Merkel or Hillary Clinton referred to as "Iron Ladies" in this day and age? Simply put, referring to a female politician as an "Iron Lady" is usually used by journalists to point out rising females in politics that display a certain "steel" or "toughness" about them. Thatcher was referred to as "the Iron Lady" by a Soviet newspaper and was in-fact meant to be a snide criticism, hence a total contrast in context. On the other hand, Bill Clinton of course was once referred to as "The first Black President". Doesn't make that so important or encyclopedic, does it? It's undue weight, pure and simple.
  3. Just redirect the article to Margaret Thatcher with the following hatnote:
    "Iron Lady" redirects here. For other uses, see Iron Lady (disambiguation).
    No problem. If an average Joe genuinely came across "Iron Lady" looking for another person? (Unlikely.) They should have no trouble in clicking the hatnote to suppress any confusion.

Once again, I cannot help but regard these arguments in favour of keeping this borderline-WP:STUB page as an article as extremely petty. Most of the information related to how Margaret Thatcher had got her nickname in the first place is at Margaret Thatcher#Leader of the Opposition: 1975–79. The rest of this article just rambles on too list media-noticed female politicians that have just happened to be called an "Iron Lady" by some odd journalist in the media. This includes Theresa May, for that matter. So just about any female politician. To be entirely frank, this article is absolutely superfluous for an encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The very least we can go about is implementing of the above three alternative options. The status quo is just an embarrassment.--Nevé–selbert 12:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is also worthy to note that Iron Lady had been originally a redirect. There is clear precedent to this proposal.--Nevé–selbert 13:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Neve-selbert: A dictionary defines the words and gives the origin. An encyclopedia defines the words, give the origin, some context and details as well as the other people for whom the phrase applies and again, some context around why. A dictionary would focus on the meaning of the words - the current article is focused on the origin and implication of the name (and should cover why so many women simply by being women are thus titled). It does need to be cleaned up - improved, especially to make it more encyclopedic but deleting it or redirecting it to another article makes the encyclopedia poorer not richer for the experience. I would much prefer your proposals to purely a redirect or deletion. But I think the article could be improved which should be the aim. I think there is historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article but it needs work. I may be biased by time of course - in my lifetime the phrase Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke (who I tended to think of as a horse). ☕ Antiqueight haver 19:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    It is completely baffles and bewilders me as to how Wikipedia would be "poorer not richer for the experience" of having Iron Lady deleted. Nevertheless, I of course accept that you take the opposite view. But with that being said, I remain entirely confident that giving note to the "historical and socio-political value to the existence of the article" can be transferred to Margaret Thatcher or a Wiktionary entry with untethered success. She is, as I repeat, the irrepressible primary topic for the term "Iron Lady". For other "Iron Ladies" (or the lack thereof) they can simply be listed at Iron Lady (disambiguation) in the same fashion as Iron Duke lists the other "Iron Dukes". For the historical context? Let's go about splitting the transferal of information between the Thatcher article and a new Wiktionary entry. As for the potential future? I frankly think that this article has had a good run. What more can we add to the article? Why each and every single female politician listed has been referred to as yet another "Iron Lady", as well as how and when and in what context? This would inevitably result in undue weight. As much as one may be optimistic, I cannot fathom as to how the article can be any "better". The article as it stands really is as good as it gets, we've had it for around a decade now as some sort of semi-stub article. That aside, redirecting Iron Lady as a section redirect would also not be a problem. I personally happen to believe a section redirect unnecessary since the term "Iron Lady" is already mentioned in the lede section in the very first paragraph at the Thatcher article. Your statement that Iron Lady holds far greater impact than Iron Duke is merely your own personal viewpoint. Here, a Google Books analysis: "Iron Duke" renders about 183,000 results while "Iron Lady" renders 40,600. That is less than 100,000 for "Iron Lady". Another point, "Iron Duke" has been used to refer to male generals and the like more often in a historical (and encyclopedic) context than "Iron Lady" has with female politicians and the like. The mainstream media perpetuates this myth of an "Iron Lady" female politician purely based on the outstanding example set by Thatcher (and her alone). Could you name any so-called "Iron Lady" wannabees following in the "Iron Lady" footsteps of anybody else for that matter? She was the indisputable progenitor that made the nickname possible. It's time we all realised this, and went about rectifying this real predicament there is with the status quo.--Nevé–selbert 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am the one who asked Wiktionary for an entry. Next time maybe you could that before the Afd... :D Still, an entry of Wiktionary would not list all the examples, so it's not the same thing. I've already told you why putting it in the disambiguation is not the same. When I use "iron lady" in another women biography I cannot link to a disambiguation page. It wrong for the DRDI and it's not the correct use of a disambiguation page (that it's mainly string based). A sociopolitical analysis is possible. It's not my field and I certainly don't have the sources from a Chemistry Department in China but it is an established sociopolitical term. Also I showed it to other female users of different nationalities during the last days. Those who replied to me they all agree that its use is implicitly sexist, that's why in many countries noone would never use it anymore (Scandinavian politician are no "iron ladies", and part of my family is Swedish, I know there's some truth in here :D), but it is historical and it's actually a perfect example of how societies reacted to a female politician, who has to be implicitly "strong as a man or even more" (or similar). See for example the use in the title Iron Ladies of Liberia, or this use used by Joshua Keating. In many countries now it is different, in other ones it is not and the term is still used, but it is a fact. One of these female friend said in her opinion there are here some echoes of the gender-gap activism of the anglophone world where often instead of focusing on the sociological aspect of a situation, people sometimes just try to "remove it" acting on the language. Maybe she's right or maybe she's not, I am not expert. Of course now you're going to discuss how poor and self referential this statement is, but I'll live with it. I mean, with the limited access I had to the sources I did what I could to avoid this deletion, which in any case does not baffles and bewilders me, it's quite common. It's the strategy of "revolving door" content that I saw so many time, where there's always someone who try to split stuff everywhere and than we have to recompose it again after some years.--Alexmar983 (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you honestly name me another "Iron Lady" with the same WP:WEIGHT that Thatcher holds? The likelihood is simply that you can't. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: "A topic is primary for a term, with respect to long-term significance, if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term." Thatcher certainly satisfies this criteria. There is nothing wrong whatsoever with a disambiguation page listing other "Iron Ladies" or the lack thereof in similar fashion to Iron Duke. There is absolutely precedent for this, as I say. I have suggested either a Wiktionary entry and/or a new #Nicknames section at the Thatcher article that can make up for article deletion. As John accurately stated above, this article is mainly media-driven. Can you bring up any Google Books or newspaper articles referring to every single female politician on that page as an "Iron Lady"? She is by far the primary topic for this term, and hence the term should and must redirect to her page or at least a section of her page. A Wiktionary entry can make up for information that cannot be merged to Margaret Thatcher, and other "Iron Ladies" that have been referred to as such in a historical rather than mass-media context can be listed at the WP:DAB page. This is plain rational thinking, and housekeeping at its best. I remain in full agreement with Cnilep and K.e.coffman that this article is merely an unnecessary WP:FORK. The majority of its information derives only from the origins of how Thatcher got her nickname (which is already included mostly at her article) and other female politicians randomly called an "Iron Lady" by the media without any historical context at all. I'm sorry, but the inclusion of this article is not sufficiently merited as to satisfy WP:WEIGHT. Thatcher or rather the film based on her life is the primary topic for this term. That, is just a fact.--Nevé–selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Neve-selbert: Your argument would have more merit if you (or anyone other than a Finn) had created a Wiktionary article for "Iron lady", but no one has. (Suggestion – proactive editors can start at Iron lady.) Even so, another factor to consider is how helpful this article has been to WP users. We see in the page visits link that 122,699 users (267/day) have looked at it in the last 15 months alone. (And I am jealous – this number is 5 times greater than the visits I've seen on the two Good Articles I worked on!) The closer of this AfD should consider – projecting back over the last 13 years, perhaps ≤1 million users have viewed the article with the intent of finding out more about the Iron Lady. – S. Rich (talk) 03:55, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
...and if they had though about a merge, there will be statistically much more comments in Talk:Iron Lady about that. We actually risk that some of the next million reader in the following years, dissatisfied with a "forced" redirect, will try to write it again. I suspect it also from that fact that I found this Afd by pure chance, by the presence on other language editions and by the reactions of all third parties I'm showing this discussion during these days. That's why a "revolving door content" scenario is highly probable. This will generate lots of wikicentric discussions full of links to help pages and even some nasty comments, but no real improvement. So I still think that the best option for a generic reader is to find an article with a warning and tag with a request for improvement.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:30, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've also updated the instance of wikidata here. I have never used the phrase "winged word" in English but the Swedish and Italian definition sounds appropriate to me. It is a neologism that can be associated to a specific creator. It is possible that the English label may be changed, but the instance represented by the item is correct.--Alexmar983 (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The chances of a "revolving door scenario" are slim and even so, see Harambe for example. The primary topic for the term is the late gorilla and there can be no doubt about that. Yet there is a hatnote at the top of the page to suppress any confusion if somebody happens to be looking for something different related to "Harambe" given the link given to Harambe (disambiguation). There will certainly be a hatnote at the Thatcher article. And since Thatcher is evidently the primary topic for the term (and I have given more than a fair share of evidence in my replies above), most people searching for "Iron Lady" are probably looking for the film based on her life rather than the woman herself for that matter. They most likely just landed on this article by mere accident. "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher, "Milk Snatcher" (which redirects to a section, by the way) is second. Most searches related to "Iron Lady" or "The Iron Lady" are beyond reasonable doubt related to Thatcher, and I can certainly supply you all the statistics the Internet can offer if you like. The same goes for "Iron Duke" with Wellington. The rationale for redirecting this article is clear and sound. I can assure you that there will be no indiscriminate loss of information at all. I have thusly prepared contingency plans to prevent such a scenario from happening.--Nevé–selbert 13:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A contingency plan that does not imply a wikictionary entry before the Afd wasn't probably the best version.
In any case Harambe does not exist in many language editions and does not receive so many visits, "revolving door scenario" chances are therefore high. The hatnote does not solve the mistaken links to the Thatcher article from other articles when it has a generic meaning (the way I ended up here). In another scenario you're forcing to redirect to a disambiguation page with no source, and that's also wrong per se, as disambiguation pages should not act as a de facto article (or a portion of an article). Even if part of the people came here because of the movie, they didn't complain about the article as it is, and they were a lot; this tells you something about what readers mainly perceive as correct (I had another proof just asking around offwiki). In any case, noone has ever doubted that "Iron Lady" is the most popular name for Thatcher or that the majority of the use is referring to her, but I am (we are, probably) aware that there is now a consistent use as a generic sociopolitical term, that goes beyond her. The fact that it has been retroactively referred to leaders emerged before her is also a spy of that. This aspect has its own dignity, it is worth an article alone because of its worldwide use and stuffing it in a redirect is excessive. It's good sense IMHO to "let it be". There is also a potential loss: as every work in progress, the article when present is ready to include other sources. Splitting it makes this process of improvement much complicated. The improvement to the whole wiki come from someone who wants the article alone (a new source, a better cat, a new instance on wikidata)... I've also realized that we don't have a category and an article for "winged word". That's what the presence of an article makes 99% of the time when it is appropriate, it fits in the workflow of the wiki. An article in the right place is a constant push for improvement of the whole wikipedia. I saw the "revolving door scenario" so many times and I spent so much time fixing the effects of these "neutral" and "complete" redirets in different languages that I cannot but feel the duty to oppose.--Alexmar983 (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I just cannot understand why Iron Lady can't just be merged into Margaret Thatcher. We can create a new section at the article relating to the nickname, and how it has been used retrospectively to describe other people. Therefore Iron Lady redirects to something like Margaret Thatcher#Iron Lady. A hatnote can be added above that section like so:
"Iron Lady" redirects here. For other individuals referred to as such, see Iron Lady (disambiguation) § People.
It's like Nixon redirecting to Richard Nixon. I mean, sure there are plenty of other Nixons, but the 37th President is the primary topic for the term and hence Nixon rightfully redirects. We face a similar dilemma with "Iron Lady". Dividing the information across Wikipedia through a disambiguation page and a merge along with the Wiktionary proposal seems to be the best compromise. Having had a look at Pages that link to "Iron Lady", there aren't too many pages linking to this article. I am sure most readers would be satisfied if they were transferred to Wiktionary to read about the term and how it came about. Yes I regret not creating an entry before opening up this Afd. I only came up with the idea soon after I opened this discussion. That was a mistake, I realise that. If you like, I can create the entry for Wiktionary:Iron Lady now. Would you find this helpful, Alexmar983?--Nevé–selbert 15:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find it helpful for Wiktionary, it might change someone else's position here. It does not change mine. Connectivity for me is a subtle topic, it goes beyond explaining how the link to a disambiguation page works. It's also about an overall perspective on how article and language editions interact, in my experience 66% sources and 33% good sense. I bet you here a coffee than if redirected in less than 5 years somone willa sk to or will recreate this article. And it will look to me like a fragmented distribution of information in the meantime. I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, so many people won't do it at all. It's not like Nixon, if you end right there the disambiguation hat is at the same level of your eyes. To me it is a decent article with its dignity of a sociopolitical term with explanation and examples, it deserves to be found under the right category and linked to wikidata, just there, waiting for some better sources like millions of peers. In any case, I'm here by chance... I know what it is to correct this "forced" redirects, and I kinda feel sorry for whoever will try to do it later.--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I link "iron lady" from another article to a paragraph of Thatcher and than I have to scroll up to the link to a disambiguation pages to try to have a overview of other uses, I'm sorry, what? This is nonsense. A hatnote would appear right below the heading, as is convention. Just like Nixon. There shouldn't be any "surprise redirects" at all. Iron Lady is, as I must repeat, a media-driven nickname and not a sobriquet adopted by most historians to describe other female leaders. Per Criteria for inclusion at Wiktionary, I am confident that Iron Lady satisfies the criteria. I would also recommend adding {{Copy to Wiktionary}} to the article in the meantime. Furthermore, I would note the fact that we already have Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto von Bismarck despite a number of media sources ([1][2][3] [4]) indeed describing Angela Merkel as another. Yet Bismarck is clearly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the term and hence a redirect is justified without mentioning Merkel. Having a disambiguation page for "Iron Lady" meets that situation half-way. I'm pretty sure that if President Obama or Putin were women they would be described as "Iron Ladies" too, for that matter. Most journalists picking out "Iron Ladies" are most likely male, and it really is a lazy description used without weight for posterity. Has the nickname "Iron Lady" stuck to Hillary Clinton or Merkel or even Rousseff? No. Has it stuck to Thatcher? Absolutely. Even Meir has to be described as "the Iron Lady of Israeli politics" to disambiguate her if you will. Who refers to Thatcher as the "Iron Lady of British politics"? Nobody dares to disambiguate her from the pack, she is the Iron Lady without further ado. You go on to say that you'll "kinda feel sorry" for those who have to correct these "'forced' redirects". This can be easily rectified in my view. Per WP:ASTONISH, I would myself be astonished if users were shocked, surprised or overwhelmingly confused by landing at Margaret Thatcher. This was her nickname above all before anybody else, for crying out loud. Just like there are plenty of John Tylers and Andrew Johnsons, there is a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC in sight here. Any contemporary "Iron Lady" today is always seen as a latter-day emulation, imitation of Mrs Thatcher, rather than their own person in their own right. I must stress that a hatnote would satisfactorily suppress any confusion. For just one example, take a reader misspelling "Barrack" without the extra "r" in the search bar ending up at Barack Obama. That person (however dazzled beyond belief) can easily click on Barack (disambiguation) and land at the See also section to enter Barrack. Your concerns may be understandable, but I believe that they can be sufficiently managed. There is even an option of getting a bot to go around to fix links to the article-in-question, if the idea of a reader landing at Margaret Thatcher is so unthinkable and outrageous.--Nevé–selbert 19:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Isn't it time this discussion was closed per WP:SNOW, as it seems clear there is no prospect of consensus for deletion, but it is wasting the time and efforts of several Wikipedians who could be using their time more productively? Tlhslobus (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    @Tlhslobus: You are correct in saying that there is no prospect of consensus for this article's deletion per se, but neither is there a consensus to keep the article the way it currently is. Per the Afd stats, almost double the amount of those wanting to keep this article would like the article merged/redirected to Margaret Thatcher.--Nevé–selbert 14:00, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Votes are currently 5 Keep, 3 Merge, 5 Redirect (Incidentally redirect seems in practice to be the same as deletion). So no consensus for any course of action. My understanding is that in the absence of consensus for change, no change takes place (in effect the status quo is assumed to be the 'old consensus', which stays in force unless and until a new consensus emerges to replace it). In other words there doesn't have to be consensus for Keep. (It may or may not also be slightly relevant that most of the recent votes have seemingly been for Keep, arguably suggesting a drift towards Keep). However I don't want to waste my time or anybody else's on debating this question. As an involved party, I won't be flagging the discussion as closed myself, as I understand that is normally best done by an uninvolved party. (Right now I would tend to expect that an uninvolved party would conclude that it should be closed, mainly because there currently seems to be only one person trying to keep the debate alive, but my expectations are somewhat irrelevant, at least in the sense that an uninvolved party can and should ignore them). So having said my bit on the subject of closure I will now happily leave that question for others to decide.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Out of interest, do you think it would be a good idea to have this article tagged accordingly and renamed to Iron Lady (nickname), with Iron Lady redirecting to Mrs Thatcher with a hatnote? I confess that I opened a move discussion about this before, but that time I suggested redirecting this page to Iron Lady (disambiguation) (not Thatcher's article). This could be one way forward, perhaps.--Nevé–selbert 00:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that would be an unnecessary complication. ☕ Antiqueight haver 00:56, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Complication? I beg to differ. If anything, it would certainly de-complicate matters beyond reasonable doubt. Take a look at Iron Chancellor redirecting to Otto Bismarck for precedent. Merkel is frequently referred to as an "Iron Chancellor" in the press, yet this does not automatically merit encyclopedic weight. The #Political usage section should be removed, if this article is indeed kept through lack of consensus. Personally, I happen to believe that a move would make perfect sense, and would render as an amicable compromise indeed for this article to be disambiguated with "(nickname)" at the end of it. She is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, this cannot be clearer. Other female politicians are called "Iron Ladies" consistently in sole comparison with Thatcher. She is the Iron Lady, just as Bismarck was the Iron Chancellor. I could go on and on (but I already have, see my replies above) Frankly, the status quo is a blatant disregard for WP:WEIGHT, and just cannot afford to stand in the long term.--Nevé–selbert 01:15, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Margaret Thatcher. Yes, the title has been applied to other female leaders, but almost always in a sort of throwaway way to compare them to Thatcher herself. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Redirect to Margaret Thatcher as a clear case of WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT. Other entries should be merged to Iron Lady (disambiguation) or pruned. Only keep those where the target article actually mentions a notable attribution of the nickname to the subject. Not all female political leaders are routinely called "iron ladies"; I even suspect that very few are. — JFG talk 15:00, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Compromise: Rename the article "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), eventually along with appropriate minor modifications to the article, especially in the lead, plus a suitable 'About' template at the top, and have a link to it from 'Iron Lady (disambiguation)', and probably also from the Margaret Thatcher article (as is currently the case). And then let "Iron Lady" redirect to Margaret Thatcher per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (as "The Iron Lady" already does). Otherwise we will have a situation in which rules like "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" are being misused to prevent the existence of a well-sourced article about a topic which has been viewed relatively recently by over 100,000 readers, is found in over 40,000 Google Books (at least 15,000 of which make no mention of the so-called primary topic (Thatcher), and quite a lot more probably briefly mention her without being about her), not counting non-English books (as well as 435,000 general Google references in English that don't mention Thatcher), and is relevant (sometimes arguably, sometimes unarguably) to thoroughly encyclopedic areas as diverse as Political Science, History, Media Studies, the evolution of Language and/or Culture, and Feminism. Besides in practice violating WP:BIAS through having sexist and anglocentric effects as already mentioned, such a result would be a very bad case of Wikilawyering and a serious violation of WP:IAR ('Ignore all rules that prevent you improving the encyclopedia'), one of our most fundamental rules, as it gives effect to the the 5th of the 5 Pillars of Wikipedia ('Wikipedia has no firm rules'). It would presumably also be setting a pretty terrible precedent for similar future disimprovements of the encyclopedia. With so many books dealing with the topic, there should be plenty of scope for subsequently improving the article. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:16, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, if somebody has the technical skills (which I don't), it might be simplest to just be BOLD, rename the article as "Iron Lady (political term)" (or something similar), create the two suggested links to it, create the new 'Iron Lady' as a redirect to Thatcher, remove the Article-for-Deletion notice from the renamed article, and leave a note here saying this has been done, and that anyone who wishes to do so can always create a new Article-for-Deletion request for the renamed article. The point is that an awful lot of the argument here (about WP:PRIMARYTOPIC) seems to be the unfortunate result of the article currently having an inappropriate name. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On further thought, a better new name for the article would be "Iron Lady (expression)", since, as the article already indicates (somewhat inadequately at present, but that is easily fixed), the term is also used for non-political figures such as the Hungarian swimmer Hosszu, and this use may (or may not) increase over time. (I also considered "Iron Lady (neologism)", but rejected it, as we are quite likely to eventually discover much earlier uses of it, and also the 1970s is not all that 'new', and gets less and less 'new' as time passes).Tlhslobus (talk) 19:46, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I do broadly agree with this proposal; thanks, Tlhslobus, for your admirable effort at striking a happy medium here. If this Afd does close as "no consensus"? I will certainly attempt to implement this proposal thereafter. I just think this Afd should be closed first (you could go ask WP:ANRFC, that is if you want such a closure to occur sooner). Also (as a side note), I think The Iron Lady probably should be retargeted to Iron Lady (disambiguation), as most searching with the definite article are probably looking for the film rather than the woman herself.--Nevé–selbert 20:15, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Neve-selbert. Thanks to your very valuable and much appreciated support, the proposed compromise now has support from both sides of the dispute, so I expect it will have a very good chance of succeeding. So I'm happy to wait a little longer (too long might be a mistake, but that is not yet the case). It's probably best not to complicate things here with a distracting discussion here of the entirely separate question of where 'The Iron Lady' should redirect, but please feel free to raise that interesting question in some other forum.Tlhslobus (talk) 20:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not a lot on line so I used my time to more "productive things" (no offense). I don't read all what's new here but if the final idea, as far as I understand, is to use "iron lady" as a redirect but keep the content in an article with another title such as Iron Lady (nickname) or similar, of course I support. The title per se has never been an issue from my perspective, I just cared about the presence of a "junction article" (which is not the same of a disambiguation page).--Alexmar983 (talk) 15:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support, Alexmar983. It seems to me that we probably now have consensus on this compromise proposal - it's been there for 3 days now, has received support from key figures on both sides of the dispute, and has received no dissent. But I'm no expert on precisely when consensus is deemed to be reached. So I'm now going to try to take up Neve-selbert's above suggestion about asking for closure at WP:ANRFC - I assume the admins there are fairly expert on deciding whether or not it should be closed now on the basis of the compromise proposal, or whether we should wait a little longer. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:54, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Having now taken a closer look at WP:ANRFC, I came across this:
'Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion.'
It doesn't say how long we need to wait for consensus to be 'reasonably clear'. So rather than waste the time of admins, I propose to wait another 48 hours (until 8am (UTC) on Saturday 15 October 2016), and if there have been no objections to the compromise by then, and no requests for more time, I intend to close it myself as soon as possible thereafter, on the assumption that the compromise has consensus (always assuming somebody else hasn't already closed it on that basis). Tlhslobus (talk) 07:08, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tlhslobus fine with me... I suppose you're going to move the page, than create the redirect from the old title.--Alexmar983 (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose compromise – I chanced upon this page again and read the "potential compromise" discussion. I for one disagree that the purported compromise is valuable. Yes, this article would be better titled Iron Lady (nickname), however this is AfD, not RM, so we are here to debate whether this article should exist at all. In its current incarnation, the article still looks like a WP:SYNTH of every time any political leader has been called "Iron Lady of X" by some bored journalist, plus a WP:COATRACK of similar nicknames, so it should be deleted with any salvageable contents merged. Let me repeat my proposal: keep only the mentions of "Iron Lady" where the subject has been repeatedly and consistently called such (that covers fewer cases than currently listed), then merge those mentions to the existing Iron Lady (disambiguation). Let the Iron Lady title redirect to Margaret Thatcher, and redirect Iron Lady (nickname) to Iron Lady (disambiguation). — JFG talk 12:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just to note, I honestly don't care which route is eventually taken. As long as Iron Lady redirects to Margaret Thatcher, I'm satisfied. But yes JFG, I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, and your proposal is certainly my preferred (albeit not only) option.--Nevé–selbert 15:23, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:Synth says. 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'
But the sources do state it, notably the Collins dictionary and International Museum of Women sources. Therefore it is not a WP:Synth. Similarly most of the other nicknames are explicitly described as 'Iron Lady'-like by the International Museum of Women source. (I expect there are more such sources too, given that Google shows over 15,000 books and over 400,000 articles that mention Iron Lady without mentioning Thatcher, as I already mentioned above in the context of the argument about it being encyclopedic, and involving WP:Bias, WP:IAR, WP:Wikilawyering, etc)
WP:coatrack says that 'A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely.' But once the name is changed to Iron Lady (expression) it will be entirely focussed on its nominal subject, so it will in no sense be a coatrack. I have already pointed out above why the subject is thoroughly encyclopedic, and why deleting it would violate WP:Bias, and WP:IAR, and would be a very bad case of WP:Wikilawyering.
I called coatracking the mention of "metallic" and "the only man in…" nicknames. This is barely trivia. Again, only the section mentioning various Iron Ladies should be kept (and pruned to notable and persistent nicks), and they would fit perfectly in the dab page. — JFG talk 21:12, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And per WP:SNOW, it is also quite clear from this Afd that there is not going to be a consensus for deletion, but that there can indeed be a consensus for a name change plus redirect of the original name. But if people refuse to accept the compromise, the Afd will presumably be closed without consensus, and a great deal of time will have been wasted for no productive purpose.
However if objection(s) to the proposed compromise are not withdrawn by the objector(s) in the reasonably near future (or if it/they are not vastly outnumbered by expressions of support for the compromise, which I don't expect), and no alternative acceptable compromise is suggested, it will presumably eventually be time to ask for closure via WP:ANRFC. But I guess I should wait at least 72 hours (3 days) before even considering whether or not to submit such a request (or alternatively to perhaps attempt the WP:Bold option already mentioned above; or maybe I'll just leave it all to somebody else on grounds that I have better things to do with my time).
Tlhslobus (talk) 16:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tlhslobus: You have made your point at length, and it's not up to you or me to assess consensus or lack thereof. Let an admin handle closure. — JFG talk 21:12, 13 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Iron_Lady&oldid=1098216826"