Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religion and sex integration


 * 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. postdlf (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Religion and sex integration

 * – ( View AfD View log )

In spite of the title, the article in fact contains very little information about religion and sex integration, instead throwing in various scattered topics including the gender of deities, women's rights with or without reference to religion, and other stuff that's even less related to the ostensible topic. In theory, "women's rights in religious movements" is an encyclopedic topic (there's a category, but I don't think it has a main article); so is Religion and sex segregation, which already exists (this article, even if written in a coherent fashion, would thus still probably be redundant). But this particular article contains far too much extraneous content and original research. Even assuming there is a non-redundant topic here, which is questionable, there is not enough salvageable content here that it wouldn't be better to blow it up and start again from scratch with a clearly defined aim and structure, an appropriate scope, and a commitment to NOR. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 01:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR. There are no sources here that talk about the conflation of all these topics.  Also, there are a spate of these "x and sex integration" articles that all seem to be entirely original research.  HominidMachinae (talk) 02:00, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep They are all research as a number of authors have mentioned on the subjects in each title including this one. Research makes for good encyclopedia articles and pages, as do the included appropriate references. Marshallsumter (talk) 02:12, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is not that no one mentions either of the titles it's that they don't mention them together in this context. HominidMachinae (talk) 02:51, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I added this to the first paragraph: "Occasionally there are some protests on the concept of religion and sex integration and revolts from feminist groups to provide equal rights as men to perform sacrileges, yet they never persist or are suppressed. " Enjoy! Marshallsumter (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The "essay" you cite is appallingly badly written, presumably self-published, and quite unsuitable as a Wikipedia source. 86.160.220.131 (talk) 11:27, 17 June 2011 (UTC) (PS: I've just noticed, do you suppose "sacrileges" is a mistake for "sacraments"? That would be hilarious!)


 * I agree with you on all of your points about the source. I could not find the author, and frankly don't care. But it serves a valuable point. As Metropolitan90 has pointed out below sex integration or gender integration is generally not in common use among scholars or theologians with respect to women sharing roles in religion with men or having deities of their sex as most religions use to have. This is unfortunate. Government funding cannot be spent on analysis of religion per the separation of church and state, only on discrimination on the basis of religion. As far as I know only Australia has investigated the level of sex/gender integration of the occupation 'ministers of faith'. Most private funding is often from those who are religious and may not want studies made of religion. I wrote this article from the definition of sex integration. There is no implication made and there is no synthesis or original research per WP:SYN, but I'm not putting in the time to prove that by listing twenty-four authors and demonstrating they are discussing these matters even though the phrase "sex integration" may not be on every page. Reality is reality. A better title for such an article might be 'Gender and religion' so as to characterize the appalling lack of equality at all levels, and the efforts some religions have made per their view of their respective God (monotheists), for example, to resolve this problem. Researchers usually need funding to perform research. Religion is one of those quasi-taboo areas. Just a note: One person's idea of haphazard may be another's idea of order. Cheers! Marshallsumter (talk) 20:37, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment: Article seems like a haphazard collection of whatever random things came into someone's mind that seemed connected to women, gender and religion. 86.160.222.19 (talk) 03:14, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Article seems to be somewhat confused, either underestimating or overestimating the number of female deities in various religions. "At many times throughout human history an occasional god or deity is male or female. Neith was an early goddess in the Egyptian pantheon. Ishtar was the main goddess of Babylonia and Assyria. In pre-Islamic Mecca, the goddesses Uzza, al-Manāt and al-Lāt were known as "the daughters of god". And, the Greek and Roman ruling male gods were named Zeus and Jupiter, respectively. In the years near the birth of Jesus Christ, Judaism included the worship of a goddess (probably Astarte). Hinduism concedes that the divine can have human form and even be a woman." The only source cited in this passage is a book published by a vanity publisher which does not itself cite sources for its more controversial claims. This passage also ignores the fact that there were hundreds of Greek goddesses and Roman goddesses, and that Hinduism doesn't just "concede" the possibility of female goddesses, but has many of them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:41, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I would note that the roles of women in various religions is a notable topic (see Women in Buddhism, Gender roles in Christianity, Women in Hinduism, Gender roles in Islam, Women in Judaism, and other articles), as is the role of female deities in various religions (see Goddess). However, the term "sex integration" is not in particularly common use, as far as I can tell, at least not to refer to all the activities and concepts described in this article (it is used in some contexts but not all of these). Note also that the Wikipedia article Sex integration was written primarily by the same editor who created this article. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment Since the page's creation on 8 May 2010, six editors and bots have contributed. Marshallsumter (talk) 17:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I nominated it 12 June. Have any improvements been made since then? Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:44, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Substantially all of the substantive content in the article was added by the article's creator, not by other editors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:58, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 20:21, 12 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete this strange mish-mash of WP:OR. Goddesses, the roles of women in religion, and gender equality are all important topics, but this seems to be trying to combine them in an essay to make some sort of point; I'm not even sure what point it is. Lady  of  Shalott  21:11, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete another one of a long series of unnecessary articles duplicating existing encyclopedia  content, and from an implied POV. It is much better to add content to the actual articles on the individual concepts.  I can imagine a whole string of similar--but I'm not writing them down, because of WP:BEANS. .   DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Grab bag of facts, some right and some wrong, none of which support the notional article topic. This ill-considered article should be deleted. Binksternet (talk) 05:07, 16 June 2011 (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.