Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/On the Equality of the Sexes


 * 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) Natg 19 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

On the Equality of the Sexes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain text, as described in Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources. This is not an encyclopedia article as is, say, A Vindication of the Rights of Woman, but a copy/paste of primary source with a cursory introduction. It would need a complete re-write and/ deletion of all but assertion of existence to meet quality standards. --Animalparty-- (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep I deleted the copy/paste of the actual text of the essay from the article, which took me only a couple of minutes, even using a smart phone. The essay is notable as one of the earliest expressions of feminist thought, and significant coverage can be found in this biography of its author. We really shouldn't delete poorly written articles about clearly notable topics. Instead, we should improve them. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  06:41, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm also finding quite a bit about this, to the point where it seems to be one of her most important works since it sets up the structure for her later works. It's referenced quite frequently from what I can see and republished extremely frequently in various textbooks and readers (by mainstream academic publishers and the like). Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. This needs some serious work from someone familiar with the subject matter, but from what I can see this is one of Murray's most important works and it's been discussed in a ton of academic sources and cited with regularity in many scholarly works on the topic of feminism. I'll drop a note on WP:FEMINISM and see if anyone there can work on the article. Tokyogirl79  (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * On a side note, this will need to be moved to remove the quotation marks, since we typically do not put those on article titles. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   10:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:54, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I am satisfied the raw source text has been removed, and agree it is a notable subject. I no longer support deletion. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:43, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not notable enough to warrant inclusion, weak analyses. See Politics_and_the_English_Language for an example of a notable and sufficiently studied essay. 107.15.41.141 (talk) 04:40, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The essay is notable, but it does need a lot more work before it'll look as well laid out as that essay's article does. Just because an article isn't large or contain goo-gobs of sourcing currently on the page does not mean that it's automatically non-notable, although I will say that the current sourcing on the article is enough to assert notability, especially since many of them assert that it's the author's most notable work and laid the groundwork for her later essays on the same topic. In any case, we shouldn't throw out a perfectly notable topic just because it will need a lot of work to get to the level that other articles about essays are at. That's sort of the converse of how WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS usually works: just because another article is more fully fleshed out doesn't mean that disposing of another article is the right course of action. It just means that this article hasn't gotten enough TLC yet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   05:27, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added a synopsis of the essay to the article, so anyone coming in will have something to work with as opposed to having to write out something themselves. I want to again stress that this essay is notable and that there are multiple sources that refer to it as Murray's most notable work, as well as at least one article in a peer-reviewed journal that focuses solely on this essay and an article in the Pittsburgh Undergraduate Review that focuses heavily on it as well. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   07:53, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, for writing a good synopsis. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  01:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Articles for deletion/Log/2014 November 27.  — cyberbot I  Notify Online 16:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Haven't found a lot of pieces solely about the work (though there's this), but I'm not sure that matters after looking at the way the first page of GBooks treat the essay. This is how they introduced the work: "pioneering two-part essay", "landmark essay", "now famous essay", and so on. Since these reliable, published books consider it notable, deletion is out of the question. The question of whether it should be redirected is a matter of how many sources can be found on the topic, which is a discussion for the talk page. czar ⨹   17:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Article has been cleaned up and appears to pass WP:GNG. Kaldari (talk) 09:39, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep wp:HEY at the very least. Probably a keep when it was nominated but certainly passes the GNG by now. Neonchameleon (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep per and . -  t u coxn \talk 14:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. Significant discussion among numerous secondary sources over a sustained period of time. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2014 (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.