Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Masculine psychology


 * 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. as a WP:TNT deletion. Given that basis, no prejudice against creation of a new article at this title, provided that it avoids original research and and demonstrates notability for a unified topic. RL0919 (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Masculine psychology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

WP:TNT: While the topic of men's psychology is obviously notable, this article is a hodge-podge of unrelated theories on the relation of masculinity to everything from the gender of God to men's "fear of the feminine" to the works of William Shakespeare. I looked back through the page history and saw nothing particularly worth saving. I suggest that this article be redirected to Masculinity (without prejudice to the creation of a MEDMOS-compliant Men's psychology or Male psychology.) Cheers, gnu 57 03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. gnu 57  03:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Comment I originally thought this was a recent article by an inexperienced editor and was astonished to find that it is fourteen years old and has been edited by dozens of people. As gnu says the topic is notable but the article is a total mess. Much of the content has nothing to do with the topic and in places it approaches pure word salad. I’ve looked at several earlier versions to see if there’s something we could revert to, but I can’t find one that’s minimally coherent and properly sourced. It looks like every time someone took their first gender studies class they added or removed a section. For these reasons I’m inclined to agree with the nomination. I think trying to produce an encyclopaedic article out of the material we have here is not possible. Mccapra (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as beyond repair and possibly not even notable. The article is full of random junk, weird speculations, and undue weight on random psychoanalytic theories. Someone should take a close look at feminine psychology as well, it looks pretty bad too. I have never heard of "masculine psychology" as such, even though I have heard plenty about masculinity, gender roles, and sex differences in psychology. The topic appears to be too vague and indistinct from other topics to be truly notable, and may inherently be OR and synthesis. This seems to be a recurring problem in our behavioral and social science articles - articles that are sort of redundant and languish in relative obscurity, just accreting junk. -Crossroads- (talk) 04:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * It is a problem everywhere, not just in this topic area. Consider  for one example.  And it has been a problem for most of the history of Wikipedia, not just recently.  Consider  for example and User:Uncle G/Cargo cult encyclopaedia article writing, first written in 2008. Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Interesting! That computer one is a perfect example of this sort of thing. I stand corrected. I guess we just always have to look out for it. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a completely horrid mess of pop psychiatry, pointless detours, a bunch of odd recitations of history lessons, off-putting opinions about homosexuality, and some MRA boilerplate (I'm somewhat thankful Defending the Caveman didn't wander in here somehow). It doesn't just need WP:TNT, it needs our equivalent of a hydrogen bomb.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per all. I removed a passing reference to Manifest destiny, which is not mentioned elsewhere in the article. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - Complete mess that needs blowing up and a fresh start  OxonAlex    - talk  07:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Is it actually notable? It might be worth questioning that basic premise.  An eyecatching book title is not necessarily a subject name.  Do we actually have anything from a good source documenting this as a valid coherent concept?  Is there another enecyclopaedia with this as a subject?  A psychology handbook from a reputable scholarly publisher?  Is there a fundamental, well sourced, definition of this subject to work from?   may be a start, but masculine psychology is not actually the name that it uses.  Like  and indeed journals like Psychology of Men and Masculinity it uses the name psychology of men and masculinities, which might well be less susceptible to people finding the phrase match "masculine psychology" with search engines and cargo-cult writing an indiscriminate and incoherent collection of things on different topics.  They also let us know that Wikipedia does not have an article on the gender role strain paradigm, and does not even know that.  &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 12:26, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete Trainwreck. No survivors in the remains. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 19:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per TNT as noted above. It's just a wall of nonsense. Bearian (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2019 (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.