Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Institutional sexism in the Metropolitan Police


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Institutional sexism in the Metropolitan Police

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)
 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

This is an incendiary article title, insinuating that sexism in the London Metropolitan Police force is baked in as part of the institution, but the examples and citations cover only the last few years. This might qualify for merging into the main article about the Metropolitan Police, but only if it is not given undue weight compared to the rest of the history of this force. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Sexuality and gender and England.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:20, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Added Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police for similar reasons: the article title already assumes that racism is part of the institution, while only giving a handful of examples. Violates WP:NPOV. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 14:25, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Discrimination and Police.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 15:06, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Search "police racism" and "police sexism" on Google Scholar and you will find lots of publications on these topics that appeared in peer-reviewed academic journals. It would be a violation of WP:NPOV to pretend that the Metropolitan Police is free of sexism and racism. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 16:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep - Comment: The material in this article, along with the material in Institutional racism in the Metropolitan Police, was previously in a section Controversies in the main Metropolitan Police article. This section had become unwieldy, and from a practical point of view, the split was an improvement. There were no comments that the material in the Controversies section was biased. The only possible criticism that I can see which might be applicable to this article is the title – so instead of nominating these 2 articles for deletion, it would be better to suggest different titles. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Keep. Work better as standalone articles than a jampacked "Controversies" section, which effectively they still are, since neither article has any incoming mainspace links excepting from Metropolitan Police. They don't even link each other. I struggle to think of an equally concise, less strident title that doesn't alter the scope of the articles. The material is framed from a non-neutral basis, which makes sense given its origin and scope, but it's presented in a neutral enough manner, and is sourced appropriately. Would a Main hatnote to Metropolitan Police help at all? Folly Mox (talk) 20:56, 9 October 2023 (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.