Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy


 * 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 original research, albeit very well-sourced. I can provide the deleted content if anyone wants to improve other articles with it. Larry V (talk &#124; email) 23:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Somewhat incoherent article with almost no references which discuss the ostensible topic. As I explained to the article creator, to no effect, an article on sex integration that discusses the phenomenon in a society that happens to be patriarchal is not a source on sex integration in patriarchy. Without adequate sources discussing this intersection, it is not notable. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note on sources. The article creator says that the Catherine MacKinnon source discusses this intersection, and I can't access it, but I'll take his word for it. The Haavio-Mannila article is accessible here and does not actually discuss sex integration and patriarchy or matriarchy; rather, it discusses sex segregation with passing reference to individual patriarchal or matriarchal families, the term defined by whether the husband or wife earns more money. This is not "patriarchy"/"matriarchy" as the term is actually used by anyone, at Wikipedia or elsewhere. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 03:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Keep I strongly disagree with Roscelese. This individual has sought to delete first and only when prevented, then seeks to discuss to reach consensus, see url=http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_integration_and_patriarchy/matriarchy&diff=432621317&oldid=4. The deletions have focused not on referenced material pertinent to the focus of the article but on inclusions from other Wikipedia articles. When prevented from deleting Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy, the editor allowed the sections 'Achieving sex integration in patriarchy' and 'Achieving sex integration in matriarchy', as these references and information are clearly pertinent. Much of the additional material under the section, 'Patriarchy' deleted by this editor dealt with how the sex segregation came about and is pertinent as to sex integrating patriarchal cultures. The same is true for information under 'Matriarchy'. Marshallsumter (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Keep A simple Google Scholar search using "patriarchy" and "sex integration" demonstrates the article is NOT original research. Combining with the article "Sex integration" and the others User:SarekOfVulcan and User:Roscelese have used this 'Delete' template on will make it lengthy. The subjects deserve their own pages. They are 'start's not final FAs or GAs. And, they are past 'stub's. Marshallsumter (talk) 16:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with Sex integration. I agree both with Marshallsumter that there is material on "Sex integration and patriarchy/matriarchy", and with the nominator that this material shouldn't really be on the separate article. It's something of a content fork to separate this from the main sex integration article, seeing as sex integration is only relevant in the context of a relative patriarchy or matriarchy. --Anthem 06:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note Anthem of joy has been indef blocked as a sockpuppet of Claritas . --Tothwolf (talk) 04:05, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm no expert on this subject but I get the overall impression that this is original research. See WP:OR.  Nipson anomhmata   (Talk) 12:34, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge with sex integration precisely per Anthem of Joy, who has this exactly right. Incidentally, while I was reading around for this !vote, I read our article on achieving sex integration, which should also be merged with sex integration.— S Marshall  T/C 12:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. There is no there there. Binksternet (talk) 13:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, appears to be Original research/Synthesis. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You may not vote more than once in the same deletion discussion. Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 16:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete. A piece of original synthesis advancing a political argument.  Once again, there's the curious credal statement: Attributing relative meaning to gender or sex may transcend a belief in the reality of gender or sex so as to increase sex integration and reduce dominance by exclusively males or females.  One of the few endearing features of Homo sapiens is that no amount of egalitarian hectoring is going to succeed at making us ignore the difference between men and women. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep - The primary objection here is that this is some sort of off the wall synthesis. The prohibition against "synthesis" is one of the unfortunate anachronisms of the Days of Yore on Wikipedia, when philosophers roamed the earth and bashed bellies over conceptualizations of the revolutionary notion of an online encyclopedia. Every single biography on Wikipedia is a "synthesis" to one extent or another. It is the way that encyclopedia article-writing is done, plain and simple: assembling disparate tidbits of information from various sources into a coherent whole. This is no different, unfortunate title aside. A title change should calm nerves: Effects of gender integration on sexism or some such gets closer to the mark than this ultra-esoteric title. Is that an encyclopedic topic, I ask? Yes. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be, but that doesn't appear to be the topic of the article that's under discussion at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Pretty much. A vote of "keep, but rename and replace all of the content with new content" is not different in substance from a vote of "delete." Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 18:39, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  — • Gene93k (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to Sex integration. While I disagree with User:Carrite's opinion on WP:SYNTHESIS, vehemently, it is plain from simply reading the article that no synthesis is at work here. The article's statements are well cited and do not combine information from two sources to arrive at an original research conclusion. On the contrary, I find no indication of original research, no indication of POV, and the material that's in dispute would be a valuable asset in the expansion of the extant article on Sex integration. It will need a little rewriting (some of the statements are a little murky) but few merges don't. For full disclosure, I became aware of this article because of a third opinion request placed by its author on the relevant talk page. — chro • man • cer 00:27, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete - article is a synthesis essay. References fail to establish notability of this as a single topic.  jsfouche &#9789;&#9790; Talk 03:02, 11 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment More than a dozen authors have discussed Sex integration and ageism, or the association of sex integration with patriarchy or matriarchy, that meets Wikipedia's Notability criteria. I didn't find User:Roscelese, User:Nipsonanomhmata, User:Binksternet, User:SarekOfVulcan, User:Ihcoyc, or User:Jsfouche on the 'View history' record of editing first before nomination for deletion or a vote of 'Deletion' following the usual guidelines. May I suggest that you check 'Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines' rather than resorting to 'Deletion' first. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete One of a set of essays, with an definite implied POV,, dealing with subjects we already have. Editors would do better expanding those well-establishedexisting articles than in making new overlapping ones.   DGG ( talk ) 21:45, 14 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.