Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideal womanhood


 * 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   no consensus. Stifle (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Ideal womanhood

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Apparent neologism. Sole reference does not use the term "ideal womanhood", but rather "ideals of womanhood". Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete; not even sure what that "examples" section is supposed to be, but this article is pure rubbish. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've heard of late that AfD has become a trigger-happy affair, with articles being ditched with little apparent process. Timneu; did you fail to notice the Under Construction notice? Did it not occur to anyone that this was a very early draft saved merely to prevent loss of work? Did anyone not look at the history to see my note that I would be "adding to the article over the next couple of hours"? Frankly, I'm angry. I have heard that we're now treating new editors poorly and we're struggling to retain the good ones we have. An under construction article being canned as "rubbish" within five minutes of its creation clearly illustrates why some people are fed up with volunteering here. My suggestion: wait 24 hours before voting. If it's still regarded as "rubbish" then, well I'll suck it up. Jeez. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw the notice. I care little; what's it been, two hours? Any page that says "I'll add more later" should be immediately userfied. No point in keeping it around in the main namespace. Right now the one "example" seems to have little to do with the article's title, and as such it is WP:OR. I vote delete unapologetically. If you don't want to delete, then userfy. I wish we had CSU (criteria for speedy userfication); this article would qualify. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment2 - as for "neologism, sole reference uses 'ideals of womanhood'", may I suggest you look further than the top hit of Google and actually consider some of the 'snippets' of hits further down? The words 'ideal womanhood' and 'perfect womanhood' appear in many many pages. And even if it were correct to judge things so pointlessly as on "the top hit must use the term in its title" it still wouldn't be a reason to delete; it would be a reason to rename/redirect. --bodnotbod (talk) 14:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment3 and finally, if anyone will offer me the grace of more than 30 minutes, I will be researching and using such resources as and |++intitle:perfect+intitle:womanhood&num=10. Is that allowed? Do I have to bribe someone to get a day's grace? --bodnotbod (talk) 14:16, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. There's a lot of cultural history that could potentially go under a title like this, and some of the material at Cult of Domesticity could belong under there, as could the sort section of History of feminism.  We probably do need an article on Feminine ideal.  Coventry Patmore's poem cycle The Angel in the House also contains useful information.  Where all this stuff belongs, and what's the best place for it, I have no opinion on. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Gender role. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold for now AFD nomination was on the basis of the article and the reference provided. It's often a good plan to build new articles in your User pages before unleashing them. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 14:26, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * It's always a good plan to base AFD nominations on more than "the article and the reference provided". The overwhelming majority of Wikipedia gives incomplete treatment to subjects.  One must look to what human knowledge actually is, in order to put deletion policy into practice correctly, not merely at what a stub article tells you it is some 29 minutes after its creation.  See User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage for the right way to do new pages patrol.  Uncle G (talk) 14:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Perhaps I was trigger happy in this case. The article has been expanded since and references support the concept. So Keep Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Willing to concede, but I don't think this article title is correct. Feminine ideal seems like the proper title, with a main header from History of feminism. This seems like the accurate course of action. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 15:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Yes, a page move / rename may very well prove to be a good idea. A merge may be a final result also. Basically I come to this subject with absolutely no prior knowledge. I heard the term "ideal womanhood" used on a BBC radio programme and decided to look it up on Wikipedia to find that the term appears in a number of our articles but we didn't have a page so-named. My initial Google searches suggested to me that there may be something substantive in the concept. But as I've struggled with it this afternoon it's proved to be harder than I had envisioned. My intention is to put another 90 minutes into it from now and return to it tomorrow. Overnight I will leave the construction notice in place. --bodnotbod (talk) 16:15, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, progress has been slow. I keep finding leads for examples of ideal womanhood but when I try to pin them down to a reputable reference that I'd be happy with I find I'm putting in a lot of searches and getting content I'm not happy with. I am done for today. I shall return to it tomorrow. In the meantime, if someone wants to move it to my user space I won't feel aggrieved. If you do that, please leave a message here - or on my talk page with the new location of the page. --bodnotbod (talk) 17:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep While the article needs expansion (I just added some examples and references, so take another look before you do anything drastic), I think it can stand on its own as it is. I would oppose redirecting it to "feminine ideal" or "feminism," because there is a great deal that can be said on the topic. There are many different versions of the "ideal woman" from different cultures, by no means all of them describing the homebound little wifey of 1950s America or the prudish dutiful wife of Victorian times. See, for example, the strong confident woman described as ideal in the Book of Proverbs. --MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. Notable topic, as demonstrated by the article's sources. Merge or rename discussions should be put on hold until article is somewhat fleshed out.-- Pink Bull  16:23, 3 August 2010 (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.