Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexism in the family (2nd nomination)


 * 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. The previous AfD was withdrawn when the nominator learned that this was an educational assignment. That was courteous, allowing time for improvement, although mainspace articles should meet mainspace standards whatever their origin. However, a year on, there have been no major improvements, and in fact I notice that none of the article's original authors has edited since December 2012, that presumably being when their class project ended. Consensus now is clear that this does not meet Wikipedia's standards and that, though an article on this subject might be possible, it would be better started from a clean sheet. JohnCD (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Sexism in the family
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article in an essay. This article is written as such due to a class assignment that is far over and is wholly unencyclopedic. The article is written in a manner that attempts to persuade, and short of a complete rewrite, this article has no content that is salvageable. In addition, there is a whole section (Sexism_in_the_family) that has nothing to do with the family, but instead an entirely different subject. A merger with Sexism may be considered, but this page has so much bias in it that a complete rewrite of any facts would be needed for a merge with that article. A deletion of this page is the best decision. 155blue (talk) 02:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep, presentation seems well sourced and most educational and encyclopedic for topic choice. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 01:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Presentation is sourced an is completely in violation of WP:NOR. It is an essay which job is to persuade, not to inform. This violates one of the pillars of wikipedia in that it is completely biased.155blue (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Survived the first AfD because it was involved in an educational assignment, but Oklahoma State University should be ashamed of itself for allowing its students to leave the article in such a state.  Not only is it an essay, it is a horrible OR essay.  It fails to adequately define the topic.  The sources listed are not used to aggregate the consensus view of an established topic, but rather are cobbled together to form a vague and original thesis.  I am always hesitant about voting "delete" for a topic that hypothetically could be worthwhile, but in this case it is ill-defined.  Any attempt to fix it would be more work than simply deleting this mess, but more importantly would be an artificial attempt to recitate a fatally flawed article because it happened to have a good title. Wickedjacob (talk) 05:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT. I take the view that any article with more than six 'cleanup' templates automatically qualifies for speedy deletion; not including notability which is missing, there are currently seven.-- Laun  chba  ller  17:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete, this is a real topic, and a real issue, with a lot of real research done on it. An encyclopaedic treatment could be good, but this isn't it.  Article starts with a POV perspective (granted, one that I share) then attempts to convince the reader that it's bad and that something must be done.  That's not what Wikipedia is for.  Agree with the above assessment that a new title would be needed at a minimum, as well as a hefty dose of WP:TNT to start the thing over.  Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:19, 8 March 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.