Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploitation of women in society


 * 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 delete and redirect to Sexism. RL0919 (talk) 18:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Exploitation of women in society

 * – ( View AfD View log )

An essay-like article of the same topic as Sexism, only by a longer title. Unnecessary content fork. WIKINIGHTS talk 05:27, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:05, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge anything useful to Sexism. Consider redirecting to Sexism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm not an expert, so I'm not going to state a preference here, but as a non-expert it seems to me that there's a difference between sexism, which strikes me as something to do with attitudes, and exploitation, which seems to have a more specific connotation of active use (in this case, of women) rather than possibly unacted-upon prejudice. However, this is not an area I'm qualified to give a more robust view on. I'll be watching this debate with interest, though. RomanSpa (talk) 10:10, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete with redirect to Sexism. I was initially inclined to agree with RomanSpa that this option was unsatisfactory, but on review, sexism does cover exactly the material in this article, just in a more encyclopedic and better referenced fashion. Furius (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –&#8239;Joe (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep This is clearly a notable topic -- see The everyday exploitation of women, for example. We have a variety of similar article titles pointing in various directions, as follows, and so merger is not clear cut. Our policies WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE apply and so deletion is not appropriate.  See WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Exploitation of women redirects to Sexual slavery
 * Exploitation of women in mass media is a separate page
 * Third World Movement Against the Exploitation of Women is a separate page
 * Female slavery in the United States is a separate page
 * Female slavery redirects to Sexual slavery
 * The link you cite uses "women's subordination" and "patriarchy" as synonyms of exploitation in the abstract. I'm not going to take the effort to look inside the actual text, but I'd want a source to more directly claim that the exploitation of women is its own concept. Any difference in terms is pedantic and next to useless for the layman leader. Subtopics should not have their own articles, even if they pass GNG, if they are not especially notable in themselves. Wikipedia does not summarize all scholarship.
 * Merging is still possible. Just because there is no one target to merge into, does not mean we have to keep an article. We should merge relevant research into multiple articles. Of the research in the discussed article, most content is unsourced and thus unfit for merging. Even the sourced content would be all excessive detail and border on undue POV pushing. This essay-like article was written to push a POV in the first place. (The author probably just wasn't aware of policy.) WIKINIGHTS talk 20:45, 10 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Sexism as a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Alternatively, even if this article could theoretically be made into a decent page which isn't redundant with Sexism, the writing style is unencyclopedic to the point that such an article would retain nothing currently in the article. Therefore, we should just WP:TNT it. Mlb96 (talk) 20:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Just because you found an journal article title using the same words doesn't mean we need a knee-jerk reaction to keep a mediocre student essay, unsalvageable for an encyclopedic article that doesn't duplicate what exists elsewhere. Similar pages could see a plausible expansion and split in this direction, but you're right, AFD isn't clean-up and this shouldn't even be cleaned up. Reywas92Talk 20:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete yet another redundant, orphaned essay page from yet another student editor who had no idea how editing Wikipedia works. Dronebogus (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2021 (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.