Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexism against men in India


 * 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   no consensus; the article has been heavily edited and the original reasons for deletion do not seem to apply to most of the new content.  Sandstein  20:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexism against men in India

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

The article is full of NPOV problems. For one, it fails WP:V in most aspects. No citations for the majority. Not an encyclopedic article. Delete or possible merge if anything out there fits. Undeath (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SOAP. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Is partly referenced, and pretty interesting. Needs a lot of work to clear up POV (and maybe a re-name, remove the "against men"?). NPOV isn't reason to delete - add the appropriate clean-up tags. Less than a week old, you've given the creator no chance to address the problems.Yobmod (talk) 11:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Balance and rename. There should rather be one article on sexism in India, so that the issues on both sides can be discussed. --Slashme (talk) 11:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per Colonel Warden. If renamed to Sexism in India, this section (about men as victims) must be drastically shortened to what can be verified. In a country where (depending on the district) 25% to 75% of female fetuses are aborted, women can legally be discriminated against in every field and by every employer (and often get praise for doing so), and men are rarely punished for the murders of their wives, having an article about sexism in India and having sexism against men be more than a minor footnote would be giving massively undue weight to that part of the topic. --NellieBly (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.   --  Fabrictramp  |  talk to me  22:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: Original research. Seems like an essay to me. Also POV rant against Women. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 04:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Not OR. This ref in particular shows that this subject is adressed in major national media: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/3165918.cms. Read the references in the article!Yobmod (talk) 09:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That item is a crticism of pro-women laws and so best covered under a heading such as Reverse discrimination. The article considered here just seems to be a synthesis of various issues of that sort and is not well-supported as a topic in its own right. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The Reverse discrimination article seems to be about racial discrimination. Merging the cited info from here would swamp that article and quadruple its references, making it look like a decent article, which it isn't.Yobmod (talk) 15:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment : I have left a message on the talk page rather than continue this discussion here. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 11:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment : I've been doing a little editing on the article (i'm no expert on the subject, is just me and google). Hope people will see that it is definitly improvable to a keep standard.
 * Would people here agree that the Women in India article is just a NPOV? Why not?Yobmod (talk) 12:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If you have anything to discuss about Women in India, please do so on that article's talk page, not here. --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No.Yobmod (talk) 12:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. It has problems but the subject is valid and the article can be cleaned up. Eeekster (talk) 04:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * How is the subject valid? It seriously just looks like a rant against women. The entire article is a problem. Undeath (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you read the new version? Hardly against women.Yobmod (talk) 10:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The time of my post and the time of that rewrite are two different times. Try to keep that in mind. Undeath (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's why it was a question :-). But you still didn't say if your comment was about the new version (since addition of dowry/eve teasing/violence/education/selective abortion sections on 27th June)Yobmod (talk) 13:51, 30 June 2008 (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.