Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender gap

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:23, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Gender gap
Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets is just one of the BJAODN-worthy "highlights" this page has to offer. The ingenial authors of this piece have made a list of stereotypes about men and women, and have not even shied away from grouping the resulting ugly list into 'gender gaps favoring men' and 'gender gaps favoring women'. (Needless to say, we all know Wikipedia - the "gaps favoring women"-list is of course twice as long as that of gaps favoring men.) This page is unmaintainable on Wikipedia.--Fenice 10:52, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * From the article: "the female sections of clothing catalogues are often more comprehensive than the male sections" Excuse me whilst I cry over the inherent unfairness of it all.  Ok, I'm done.  Somehow I suspect that a real article could be written on this though.  I'd say redirect to Gender studies for the time being, and maybe it will split off from that with a real article someday. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  11:45, August 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. It feels like there's some point that the article's trying to make (which is bad enough in itself) by grouping all these statistics.  Few of the stats even make mention of sources.  The topic itself may be important, but there's nothing here that can't be found elsewhere.  --Several Times 13:38, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? The first and last sentences seem self-contradictory. -- Smjg 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * I'm just saying that it's a bunch of statistics grouped together to make some kind of point. More than deletable.  --Several Times 18:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Delete and redirect to Gender Studies, or given the content of the article, perhaps a Disambig would be better (Gender Studies, Sexism). Pockets and mail-order catalogues aside, this is a laundry list of what seems to be undocumented and unexplained (not unexplainable) differences in the US. Example: Women live longer (mostly) (no sources) and Men pay more for insurance (not connected in article) Could we possibly have a less intelligent article, excepting only vanity pages? We already have an article on Sexism.--KillerChihuahua 13:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Common believes mixed with original research. --rdnk 16:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Huh? Firstly, how is "Male clothes are often better equipped with pockets" either J or N?  Do you just happen to live somewhere where this is just not true?  Both my observations and a few online writings e.g.  show it.  And you called a VfD just because of these additions?  Would you have called one when they were only mentioned on the talk page, if you'd noticed at that time? -- Smjg 17:44, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. POV, and yes, it is N.  (Women, for instance, "have testosterone" too.) JDoorjam 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. There is definitely potential for an article here focusing on the term relating to the gap in support between genders for political parties in various countries. It is certainly a verifiable term. Capitalistroadster 00:24, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, a joke or child essay. Pavel Vozenilek 02:55, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This article is lousy, but that is not a critera for deletion. The article is POV, but that is not a critria for deletion. The topic itself is encyclopedic. This article is mostly original research but sources are easy to find, remove the lists. Rewrite the intro. Mark as a stub and keep Zeimusu | (Talk page) 04:20, August 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * rewrite or if possible revert to an older edit that isn't as stupid--172.165.218.226 15:29, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete I was going to vote to keep and cleanup because this is a valid topic, but this article is nothing but a list of absurd factoids. It's much better to start anew. --Ryan Delaney talk 17:29, 20 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.