Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deep voice privilege


 * 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. I suppose I could have gone with No Consensus, but the last two commenters presented what look like solid sources. Also, some of the arguments to delete (too short, poor title, OR/SYNTH) are things that can be fixed by editing and don't require deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Deep voice privilege

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This would fit under a WP:REDUNDANTFORK type of article. The article is too short to be its own article, and it is something that little have ever heard of. It would be best suited if this were deleted all together or if it would go under another article as a sub category (maybe under the Social privilege page as an example.201020132015hawks (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. Wikipedia has many, many articles that are tagged as stubs. An article being short is not a reason to delete. This article is adequately referenced. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 21:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per Eastmain. Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 23:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete It’s evident that there is not much information about this “topic” that could validate expansion of it. Maybe in a few years, as people make up new forms of prejudice, there may be more in depth coverage of it. It’s 4 sentences for goodness sake. Trillfendi (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Bizarre topic but it meets GNG, stub or not. — Rutebega ( talk ) 01:46, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Somebody WP:TROUT me; I need my eyes checked. The Huffpost article is decent WRT depth and RS, but it doesn't really cover "deep voice privilege" per se, and the other three are more or less rubbish. If that's all that's out there, we have no reason to presume notability. If there's anything verifiable here it can be merged with Human voice or possibly Vocal register. — Rutebega ( talk ) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete This article is WP:SYNTH, prohibited by policy, with a dash of WP:MADEUP and/or WP:NEO. None of the sources contain the phrase "deep voice privilege" or even "privilege". Two of the sources discuss the same Duke study that found a correlation between voice pitch and CEO pay, in which, again, the term is not used. Another source is literally (or was literally, before it apparently became a malware site) a "How to Get a Deeper Voice" product promo site. The final source simply talks about differences in voice pitch. "Deep voice privilege" is not a term that JSTOR finds, so the fundamental claim of the article fails WP:V. And, judging by the (unreliable) sources found via Google search that discuss the term almost entirely in a sarcastic and mocking way, this article seems to be an attempt to parody and belittle other kinds of "privilege" articles. There's no reason Wikipedia should participate in this effort, and it's disappointing to see any editor !voting keep here. Bakazaka (talk) 03:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd say that's a bit speculative, and I'd AGF by default, but you're right about the quality of these sources. I've revised my !vote. — Rutebega ( talk ) 04:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge The topic just needs work per our editing policy. It's easy to find more sources for this, such as Voice in Charismatic Leadership or Why We Prefer Masculine Voices.  The development of the page and its title should then follow the sources. Andrew D. (talk) 09:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Neither of those sources use the terms "deep voice", "privilege", or "deep voice privilege". Nothing in editing policy requires editors to make things up to create articles, and in fact that is explicitly prohibited. Bakazaka (talk) 20:51, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is a notable topic here, although the article as currently drafted lacks reliable sources and engages in OR/synthesis. In addition to the sources noted by Andrew above, I would point to studies here, here, and here, all of which I pulled from one of Shankar Vedantam's Hidden Brain podcast transcript on the NPR website. Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  00:10, 9 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.