Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gender mainstreaming in mine action


 * 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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 03:23, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Gender mainstreaming in mine action

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I have visited this periodically to see if it has moved from being an essay into being an article. I have concluded that it has not.

I have tried to determine what this piece is. What I see is a well enough referenced propaganda piece for a good cause. But Wikipedia is not for promotion of causes, however good they are.

This is a WP:AFC piece accepted by a reviewer with the wisdom to give it a chance in main namespace, in the hope that it would be turned into an article instead of an essay. That has not taken place, and my opinion is that it cannot take place, because this is a promotional piece in favour of a cause. Fiddle  Faddle  20:31, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep for now - give it more time. This article is very new and still being actively edited (created in March 2015 and most edited August 10 2015). Perhaps inviting the editors to the talk page to discuss how to make the transition would be a better solution. There's obviously a lot of good content here, a plenty of sources. LaMona (talk) 21:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment In general we apply the criteria for article deletion or retention to all articles whatever their state of development. While there is also no deadline on Wikipedia, articles that start out borderline and remain borderline with during the WP:AFC process and substantially after their entry into the main namespace can be considered to have had their chance. Such good material as there may be appears to be concealed in much fluff and clutter, so much that creating a précis of it appears to be next to impossible. Such detail as there is has already been covered in mine action. I see insufficient material to justify this extra article. Fiddle   Faddle  07:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that notability of topics is judged on sources, regardless of the article quality, here at AfD. Since you didn't directly state a deletion policy above, could you say which deletion policy you are invoking in this AfD? That might make it clearer to me. Thanks. LaMona (talk) 14:43, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Notabiity is based upon sources, but the article must also not be an essay, not synthesise nor be original research, may not be propaganda, may not evangelise for a good cause. We require an article that is concise, relevant, to the point, well referenced, and so much more. Please choose any you wish from the multiple policies it is in breach of. I am not required to state the policies in detail in the nomination. We discuss the proposal instead. Fiddle   Faddle  16:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment This article is longer than the base Mine action article. It is rather sparse on content and heavy on fluff. It could be edited down to 2 or 3 substantial paragraphs and merged into Mine Action with a link to Gender mainstreaming. Having an entire 23 paragraph article including all minutiae seems excessive. WP:BECONCISE WP:BLOATED--Savonneux (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment I keep looking and looking at it and am failing to find anything that can be added to the Mine clearance article except a line to the effect that gender mainstreaming has a role to play in the clearance/action, together with a reference. GM has a role to play in pretty much every aspect of life, and a proliferation of Gender mainstreaming in foo articles seems to me to be unwise. I would be content with an outcome "Merge to mine action and remove the bloat". Fiddle   Faddle  07:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I was being generous. The section on dogs in the mine clearing article only has one sentence.--Savonneux (talk) 07:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep The article does have too many primary sources, but there are at least two good-quality sources that are specificaly about "Gender mainstreaming in mine action" and not about "Gender mainstreaming" or "mine action" separately. It appears to be notable on its own and I think reports of it being an essay are largely exaggerated. If this is longer than the main pages, it just means those main pages need further expansion, or this one needs trimming, or both, but having one page that is longer than another is not a good reason for deletion. CorporateM (Talk) 19:59, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * RE:If this is longer... It wasn't listed as a reason for deletion. It was listed as a symptom of being overly detailed and full of true but trivial content. It could be better served in fleshing out the Mine action article with some heavy editing. Right now it reads like a university paper for "research the intersection of these two specific topics."--Savonneux (talk) 22:56, 13 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep I am someone who works in mine action and have been trying to edit the page and create links over the past month. Although I am new to Wikipedia editing, I do not see the difference in quality, writing style, and worthiness between this article and some of the other mine action and security links mentioned in this article such as Gender and Security Sector or other NGO's doing similar work like DCAF. There are 1000's of articles written in similar ways with trivial detail about a wide arrange of topics that one may or may not find interesting or important. As a person in Mine Action, there is definitely new content here compared to the mine action page and at least someone studying gender issues and international relations or peace and conflict & resolution might be interested in knowing those details just like I was interested in knowing more details about Al Capone while watching Boardwalk Empire yesterday. Who decides what is trivial and what is noteworthy? An article on Kim Kardashian, although more popular, is arguably more trivial in terms of impact on saving lives. Lastly, there is a bias here towards things related to gender and diversity because they don't fit white male interests. Why would there be a need for a GenderWiki if that were not the case? Bottom line, the content is accurate with sources, distinguishable from other similar content, and does not state any personal opinions, just opinions of experts, so at most one could argue that this article should be trimmed but not deleted. However, it fits typical Wikipedia format that allows the reader to get the gist from the short first entry and find more details in the table of content if they want, so shouldn't it be up to the reader decide if they want more detail or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76baronchan (talk • contribs) 08:08, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Cant tell if you are accusing the editors involved in AfD of bias... In regards to the other things you mentioned:
 * There are lots of bad articles, we are reviewing this one.
 * There are guidelines about triviality. I didn't mean that the article was trivial, I meant that contains not only information essential to the topic but long collections of information that restate essentially the same things.--Savonneux (talk) 11:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I am not accusing specific editors of bias, but overall Wikipedia itself has made a call for a more diverse pool of editors and admits most are from a certain demographic. Everyone has biases.
 * There are a lot of bad articles, yes, but there are worse ones that are not up for deletion or who have a disclaimer on its quality. Again, as a newbie, it seems there are certain articles that never get a disclaimer or who have a disclaimer forever and never get challenged for deletion, so why is this article so quickly proposed for deletion? Is it the fact that I've been editing it so much that it puts it on the radar of other editors more?
 * I ultimately agree there should be a line to separate what is necessary information for an average reader but that is highly subjective. One reader may see this as repetitive while someone in mine action, working for the UN, or who has degrees in social studies, like myself, notices and appreciates the differences. Frankly, in order to suss out those differences more clearly, it actually needs more details and examples. Anyway, I admit most people probably wouldn't care to know these details and have no problem if it is trimmed down significantly. I'm still just trying to learn how wikipedia works but think it still has some a lot of issues which are important to debate given how powerful the information it displays can be.76baronchan (talk) 13:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Beware WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as an argument for retention or deletion. It does, and it will eventually be improved or deleted. We are discussing the deletion of or improvement of this article only. Beware, also, thinking that Wikipedia is here to be useful. It is not. Wikipedia exists as an encyclopaedia. By happenstance it may also be useful. It is not here to provide information an editor believes to be necessary, but is here to record what others report. Duplication of material in articles can be considered a WP:POVFORK and is deprecated. We use Wikilinks to other articles to gain that information. You need to be aware that, as someone working in this field, your view is not neutral. WP:COI is important here. As for the notion of bias, I now feel accused of it. I admit to many biases in my life, but I do not allow them to affect my time here. Fiddle   Faddle  13:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment
 * Thanks. I am still learning how wikipedia works. I understand what the rules and guidelines are trying to do as checks and balances, but at the same time they are limited and perhaps by design fundamentally flawed when those most qualified to understand and record reported information in their field are those discouraged from participating. Editors hold a lot of power because despite what the intended purpose of wikipedia is to be as a recorder of reports, there are so many bad articles and so many people use it as their main source of fact and information. Perhaps every new editor has to get that off their chest as they continue the Herculean task of editing all this stuff.
 * Anyway, back to this article, every statement is backed up with a supporting document or website. The sources are international and national mine action organizations and journals, the UN, other news outlets and internationally agreed upon treaties and action plans signed by most of the countries in the world. I don't see how that is not simply a recording of reports. Gender mainstreaming is an aspect of all mine action standard procedures and policies. People may agree or disagree about its effectiveness, which is why I added a criticism section to make it more neutral, but it is a reported phenomena that exists as a standard in mine action. I don't see how it is any more promotional or argumentative than any other (I know can't make this argument) page as any thing published anywhere could be seen as promotional. Perhaps it's written in a more university style way, so please edit some of the wording that is troublesome. I've tried. Perhaps more sources could be from mainstream media to support its notability, but recording what the mainstream media reports these days would be extremely limiting. The guidelines section is a bit "How to" and a simple reference to it would be enough rather than a whole section. The history section contains provides background and natural links back to other noted wiki pages, but it is only slightly different than what the Gender in Security Sector page lists. At minimum, the basic content should be included in the general mine action page or we simply trim it down in half. To me, the only debate is the noteworthiness of the details of the content after looking at all the policy/guidelines and not its overall keep-ability.
 * By the way, were all biased in every situation and it's not necessarily a bad thing or good thing. The very fact we're debating this and all of us have different opinions show we have subjectivity/bias. My interpretation of the guidelines is different than yours, but I'm still deferring to more experienced editors, and obviously this article is more interesting for me as someone in the field. I just want it to be accurate and perhaps someone will learn from it. By the way, I am not the only editor who feels usefulness is an argument for keeping an article: WP:CARES 76baronchan (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I might point out that at the moment there is essentially one person for keep and one for delete. That's likely a no consensus close which is pretty much the same as a keep. Comments aren't counted in AfD closures.--Savonneux (talk) 23:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep It seems to be a niche concept (how many articles can we have on mine action?) but it is reasonably sourced and somewhat notable. It can use improvement, but that is not a reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 16 August 2015 (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.