Talk:Finkbeiner test

Notability

I am admittedly not 100% familiar with the Wikipedia notability policy. However, I'm having difficulty finding coverage of the Finkbeiner test in secondary sources other than the Columbia Journalism Review article in the references - most other coverage seems to be in blog posts linking to this article or to the original proposal on Double X Science.

Sandstein reverted the original application of the notability tag, commenting, "Notability should be apparent from the references." However, the only references in the article as it stands are: 1) the aforementioned CJR article; 2) the article originally proposing the Finkbeiner test; 3) an article which predates the creation of the Finkbeiner test; and 4) a post on the blog i09 which mentions the test in the context of 1 and 2. Essentially, the only reference which seems relevant for notability is 1 (possibly also 4?).

I don't have the time or energy to conclusively establish notability by finding sources, but the references currently included in the article seem clearly insufficient. I think the tag should remain until more references can be added. As a side note, I'm very new to Wikipedia--apologies if I've violated etiquette or used improper methods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.9.50 (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Finkbeiner article link

The Finkbeiner test seems to have picked up more references in the last half-year; I'd certainly vote for notability at this point, but won't immediately attempt any edits -- I'm very rusty on current Wikipedia procedures.

I was curious enough to track down the article that Finkbeiner was writing when the subject came up. The original posting seems to have been deliberately vague about the identity of the astronomer in question, but from context clues (mostly about the Crafoord Prize) the subject is clearly Andrea M. Ghez, and the final article does indeed pass the Finkbeiner test! Dave Greene (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

misogyny

There is a debate over whether to include this in the category Category:Misogyny. I don't think it should be, as it's an example of a test for gender bias against women, not an example of hatred of women. As such, it should be removed from the category. I wasn't able to find any reliable sources that equated this test with Misogyny (indeed, I found one source that says a film could pass the test and still be "misogynistic"). Thoughts welcome.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Inclined to think that this is fair inclusion in Category:Misogyny as it is an example of discrimination against women. I'm not 100% clear on the difference in definition between sexism and misogyny, but this seems to come under one or the other. Battleofalma (talk) 16:46, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's hard to draw a hard and fast line, I think that it is appropriate to add the cat. Montanabw^(talk) 07:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I suggest we merge this article with Bechdel test. This is mostly notable as a derivative, a strange one, but one nonetheless. --75* 18:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree; its separate coverage makes this test independently notable. Merely being inspired by something is not enough for a merger. Also, this would overload the Bechdel test article with too much extraneous material.  Sandstein  18:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)