Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Double standard


 * 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. John254 00:45, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Double standard

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

not enough sources or refreneces Phoenix X91 (talk) 00:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 09:05, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep, surely there must be some sources for such a widely used term? I hardly think it could fall under WP:NEO.  Lankiveil (talk) 10:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC).
 * Keep and cleanup, a notable and widely used term - Dumelow (talk) 14:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Strong keep Lack of references is not, on its own, criteria for deletion, and there are certainly tons of available sources for such a common term. Maralia (talk) 17:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source, a fairly important topic. One of the problems is that the meaning has changed over time (initially "double standard of value" which meant more like "dual monetary standards supporting each other") and became adopted by women's rights activists at the height of the term's monetary popularity (late 19th century) as the double standard of morality between the treatment of men and women for sexual behavior. This remained the primary meaning of the term up until the 1960s when a variety of discourses emerged and appropriated it for racial and other disparities. Nowadays, post sexual liberation, there is no more need for the term and it has reverted to a sort of generic use, but the article fails to reflect this. --Dhartung | Talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and source per above.  Justin  chat 19:57, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Abstain - The article currently has no sources. My suspicion is that sources can be found, and if that happens, I'll change my vote to keep.  Editors have to keep a short leash on this article, though, and make sure it remains on topic since it is often horribly abused as a soapbox.  Torc2 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs substantial rewriting. I don't think notability is an issue here - the term itself is inherently notable. However, the present article approaches the concept from the wrong angle and is unsourced. Creating a good article on this will be a major challenge, but there should be enough reliable secondary sources out there to draft something. WaltonOne 20:04, 14 December 2007 (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.