Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of women's oppression


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 08:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Origin of women's oppression
Duplicate page; duplicate page is being considered for deletion as per Hobbeslover 01:53, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as nominator Hobbeslover 01:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)


 * This page seems to be very well researched, unbiased and an accurate representation. I would highly recommend it remain on wikipedia as I found it very interesting and informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.50.193.180 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete Its not bad, it's just not what we do --JChap 02:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above AfD. I also suggest merging this AfD with above one, as they essentially cover the same material-- ☆ TBC ☆ (aka Tree Biting Conspiracy) 02:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for undergraduate essays of dubious value Bwithh 02:12, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. Nor should it be a dumping ground for undergraduate essays of obvious value.  Bejnar 02:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed reading this article and I found it very well written and informative. I hope that this article is not deleted from Wikipedia. It is rare to find such an unbiased and well represented article on such a controversial subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.136.22.204 (talk • contribs)
 * Comment: Discussion in an AfD is not really about the quality of the article. "Neutral point of view" is not the same thing as unbiased.  Original research has a different meaning than it does in an academic context.  Most of the editors seem to have liked the essay, including me.  But it is precisely those qualities that make for a good term paper (arguing a point effectively, contributing something new to the discipline) that disqualify a piece from being an encyclopedia article. --JChap 01:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete, again per the nominator and the above comments (excepting the two IP ones). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 03:49, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per unencyclopedic and with a tinge of OR Ydam 08:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination Nuttah68 10:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination --Guinnog 12:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. digital_m  e ( t / c ) 21:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep it. If it was entitled "History of women's role in society" and rewritten a little it would surely qualify as an encyclopeadia entry. Ceretainly it needs cross references to sources but it seems to me to be reasonably "factually" (therefore neutrally) written as far as is possible about pre-history. This is a very important article which should be built upon not deleted. It would sit well within a series of articles on women in society ... women in Islam, women in a Christian society, Women's role in modern China etc ... possibly each could be considered to be from a POV but together they would form an important whole. If in doubt better to keep it surely? That's how I see it but then I am new to this. I am male btw. Abtract 22:11, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
 * Delete. POV/OR essay KleenupKrew 00:08, 3 June 2006 (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.