Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man out of the house (welfare rule)


 * 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. If Babakathy, one of the editors commenting in this AfD, wishes to have the contents of the article, I can userfy it to the editor on request.  Wifione  Message 11:33, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Man out of the house (welfare rule)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

I tried to clean this up a little, but after finding that source after source had nothing to do with the topic, I'm increasingly uncertain that it is a topic at all. Cannot find sufficient discussion in reliable sources. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 04:31, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: moved from Man out of the house (welfare rule) to Man-in-the-house --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete-insufficient sources for an article that seems to have been created merely to push a personal or political POV.  He  iro  04:43, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete or redirect badly malformed stub that consists of nothing more than a couple of quotes, briefly mentioning the topic as part of wider discussions. No indication that this specific rule has received any "significant coverage". HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Alternately redirect to Aid to Families with Dependent Children -- as what little mention of this rule exists appears to be purely in connection with this (now-defunct) federal assistance program. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. Hopelessly POV. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep and userfy. Nom deleted 3 sources which looked to me like they were on topic. Also, if the article was (or is now) promoting a POV, what viewpoint would that be? In other words, does the article lean toward one side in the controversy over whether welfare rules "deny welfare benefits to families headed by a heterosexual couple, on the grounds that an able-bodied man ought to support his wife and children"? If so, then by all means let's fix the article by finding sources for the other point of view. For almost any political idea, we can usually find support for the opposite idea. Why not help me do it? --Uncle Ed (talk) 23:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * NOTE: moved from Man out of the house (welfare rule) to Man-in-the-house, because recent sources I have found use the term "man-in-the-house" more often. --Uncle Ed (talk) 01:19, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete unbelievably confused and confusing article. As Hrafn says, this article is really about the AFDC, which we already have an article on so this falls under CSD:A10. "man-in-the-house" does not seem to be a common phrase so I don't see a strong case for redirecting. The article doesn't define the term properly - nothing in the AFDC rules appear to specify heterosexual couples, for example. It uses references incorrectly - Sam Brownback isn't mentioned in the reference that quotes him, for example. Its full of synthesis, for example the quote "This feature created a clear disincentive for marriage and also a clear incentive for divorce" is used to support the article's claim that the rule promotes matriarchy, but it doesn't. The external link to the Daily Mail article has nothing to do with a man-in-the-house rule, but seems to be there to broaden the article's scope beyond just the AFDC; it does not and again is subtle original research. Sparthorse (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * "Man-in-the house" policies gets 53 million Google hits, so while it may not be a familiar term to you it in nevertheless out there in the real world.
 * Here's one from Harvard Law School: "Former federal welfare rules allowed states to condition eligibility upon the sexual morality of recipients by enforcing “suitable-home” or “man-in-the-house” rules."
 * If the article doesn't define the term properly, the solution is to correct the definition; e.g., if the word "heterosexual" is the problem just delete it. Any reference that's improperly used can be deleted; that has nothing to do with whether the topic is notable. It's relevant to the history of welfare benefits in the USA, anyway.
 * And if the article appears to claim that the rule promotes matriarchy, that should be changed to clarify that certain advocates made that claim; for NPOV balance, we can cite those who (like contributor Sparthouse) say that it doesn't. With 50 million Google hits, finding such a source should be easy.
 * Finally, if anyone prefers to shrink the article's scope, so that it focuses only on the Man-in-the-house rule, that's okay with me; the last thing I would want is an article that contains original research or synthesis.
 * None of the problems with the article are justifications for not having information on the topic. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The 53 million Google hits are mostly not about this topic. The problem with the matriarchy claim is that you don't have a single source that supports this - in other words its your conclusion that man-in-the-house rules promote matriarchy, not any advocates'. And yes, the scope of an article about the "man-in-the-house" rule should definitely be the "man-in-the-house" rule. Once you scope the article to its subject, there is nothing here to be said that should not be in the AFDC since everything I've seen so far shows that the man-in-the-house rule is only discussed in the context of the AFDC. Its already covered adequately in that article. At most, a redirect to AFDC is all that's justified. Sparthorse (talk) 08:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete but transfer material to Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Babakathy (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Material will require a substantial rewrite before its suitable for inclusion. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 10:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * See also Articles for deletion/Flemming Rule - similar issue? Babakathy (talk) 07:14, 16 January 2012 (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.