Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Universality of patriarchy


 * 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   merge to Patriarchy. Cirt (talk) 06:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy

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

Orphan POV-fork created by an editor that has since been topic-banned from patriarchy-related articles. Contains lots of synthesis and POV-laden apologetics. Any legitimate information in this article can easily be merged into patriarchy, although I think that article already covers this particular topic adequately. Kaldari (talk) 16:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions.  —Kaldari (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete or stubbify - it is filled more with sythesis than original research. Bearian (talk) 17:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Sourced. If it contains OR that can be fixed. But the topic appears to be notable based on reliable sources (such as books) covering it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:40, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How would you feel about removing the OR and merging it into patriarchy? Kaldari (talk) 18:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this topic should be mentioned and covered as appropriate in the main article, but I think a separate article on the idea of patriarchy's universality is be good to have and meets our notability standards as a stand alone. If there are arguments discrediting the idea that balance would certainly be good to include. Removing the OR is probably above my pay grade, but if someone wants me to take a whack at the article I'm willing to give it a try... And this is just my opinion on the matter so others may feel differently. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep. Google Books finds around 200 published works with the exact phrase Universality of patriarchy. See http://books.google.co.uk/books?q=%22universality+of+patriarchy%22&btnG=Search+Books.
 * Google scholar finds around 75 scholarly journals / publications with the phrase. See http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=%22universality%20of%20patriarchy%22&sa=N&hl=en&tab=ps.
 * It is a well used term in academic discussion.Lumos3 (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:GOOGLEHITS. There are 630 published works in Google Books with the exact phrase "Universality of love" and 103 with the exact phrase "taste of hate". It doesn't mean we need wikipedia articles for those phrases. Wikipedia articles are for distinct concepts, like love, hate, and patriarchy. Different aspects and ideas concerning patriarchy should be dealt with in the main patriarchy article until such time as they are substantial enough to spin off into sub-articles, per Summary style. This article has not gone through that process. Kaldari (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "taste of hate" returns a fairly random set of novels, biographies and non fiction with no underlying theme discernible. Whereas "Universality of patriarchy" gives a set focused on gender issues, mostly academic . It is clear that it is a term with some currency in that field. A wiki develops wherever people are moved to put their energy. A developed article here will feed back into an improved patriarchy article. Lumos3 (talk) 20:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article only has one author (who is topic-banned for a year), so I don't think it's very likely this article will be receive much energy. And if it does, it would be a waste, since it would be far more useful to have editors who are interested in the subject working on the main patriarchy article (which is in piss-poor condition). Kaldari (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This very recent AfD is highly relevant.— S Marshall  Talk / Cont  22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's another POV-fork created by the same editor. Another one is Patriarchy in feminism. I think he realized that he couldn't exert exclusive ownership over patriarchy, so he started splitting off forks. Kaldari (talk) 22:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: article appears to be WP:OR POV-fork (from an editor who has been topic-banned for such activities). No indication that this topic is separable from that of Patriarchy. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you address the numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above? Also, if its creator is topic banned, there should be no trouble removing any OR or altering it for accuracy. So I don't see what the problem is unless you can show that the numerous books and articles covering this subject don't establish its notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer a question with a question: can you first cite any of the "numerous sources discussing this issue as noted above" that contain "significant coverage" of the "universality of patriarchy", as opposed to mere mention in discussing the wider issue of Patriarchy? I would suggest that the WP:MERGE of 'Overlap' & 'Context' would suggest that this topic is not separable from its parent topic. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 04:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer your question that answered my question with a question :) an example of the substantial coverage is the 256 page text titled The inevitability of patriarchy‎ by Steven Goldberg. I haven't read it, so I have no opinion on its merits, but the title indicates more than a mention. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we already have an article on The Inevitability of Patriarchy (until earlier today, we in fact had two articles on it -- one under the title of the revised edition of it, Why Men Rule), which can adequately address the views stated in that book. Between that article & Patriarchy, we would appear to have the field adequately covered. A third article would appear to be entirely superfluous. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 05:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The issue for notability is whether a subject has received substantial coverage. Clearly this one has. That we have an article on one of the books that covers it does not diminish the notability of the subject itself. There are many more sources dealing with this subject such as this one and all of these . This is a very notable subject that has been debated in various academic circles. I can't see why we wouldn't want to include it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We do want to include it, within the patriarchy article. If we followed your and Lumos3's criteria, every subsection of every article on Wikipedia would be a separate article. We are simply trying to follow the summary style guideline, which states "When there is enough text in a given subtopic to merit its own article, that text can be summarized from the present article and a link provided to the more detailed article." Indeed, if you look at the patriarchy article, you'll see there is already a section at the bottom discussing the universality of patriarchy (in a way that is NPOV and free of original research. That section didn't meet the author of this article's liking, so he spun off his own POV-fork even though the section in the main article was still not even fully developed. Kaldari (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would rather see the article fixed and the POV removed. As the article's creator has been topic banned, I can't see that anyone will be there stop someone from merging it, but showing magnanimity and preserving the article in a form that doesn't contain POV, synth, or OR seems to me to be the best approach. My conclusion based on the information I've seen is that this is a legitimate topic in its own right that has been the focus of very substantial coverage including at least one book focused on this topic in particular as well as numerous sources discussing the ongoing debate. I can't see why we wouldn't want to cover it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge any useful content into Patriarchy, then delete. --Alynna (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point here, you can merge or delete. If you delete it all goes, no history, no redirect. With a merge the page disappears but anyone who types in "Universality of patriarchy" will be redirected to the patriarchy article. -- Banj e  b oi   02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree with Alynna Kasmira. Merge back to Patriarchy and delete.  Subject not sufficiently notable to be broken off from Patriarchy-- Cailil   talk 19:19, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Just a point here, you can merge or delete. If you delete it all goes, no history, no redirect. With a merge the page disappears but anyone who types in "Universality of patriarchy" will be redirected to the patriarchy article. -- Banj e  b oi   02:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 'Universality of patriarchy' is an unlikely search-term, so a redirect serves no real purpose. Anybody searching for information on the subject would surely try 'Patriarchy' first. HrafnTalkStalk(P) 03:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Benjiboi. I understand what your saying - but that's precisely my !vote.  Copy/paste the info that useful from this article back to Patriarchy and delete Universality of patriarchy.  IMO neither a history nor a redirect at Universality of patriarchy would prove useful.  (If I had considered them useful I would have !voted 'merge and redirect' rather than merge and delete)-- Cailil   talk 03:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, frankly this subject itself is plenty notable on it's own but given the parent article is so short is my main reason for supporting a merge. In my book if an article could exist but is being merged more for convenience that's a reason to leave the redirect and even the history. -- Banj e  b oi   03:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean - but I think that this concept is so intrinsic to the subject of Patriarchy that a separate article is unnecessary - nothing wrong with the notability of the anthropological studies, IMO it's just unintentional content forking really-- Cailil  talk 17:08, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. The patriarchy article is very short so this can be trimmed of OR and then be sent back to the parent to grow. No need to delete though, quite notable subject. -- Banj e  b oi   02:58, 14 June 2009 (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.