Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Role in the Media


 * 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Women's Role in the Media

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has a rather obvious feminist agenda, this in no way resembles an encyclopedic article, it reads like a heavily biased essay —Frosty ☃ 02:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Unreferenced, unencyclopedic essay. Blackguard  02:59, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy References have been added, but the article still reads like an essay. I don't believe that the deletion is the best option, as I am able to pick out a bit of encyclopedic material buried within this article. However, it needs to be substantially reworked to meet Wikipedia's requirements on articles. I believe that moving this to a user page or draft would therefore be the best outcome. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Very much WP:OR. Can't see the sources myself but they all seem to be essays as well and the authors of the sources cited here don't particularly looks like experts; Issitt and Ballaro look like freelance writers, Wagner could be somebody if she is this Wagner, but still not seeing why an entire article should be built on the opinions of 3 not particularly notable people Cannolis (talk) 07:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:23, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica1000 06:27, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Userfy, agree with rationale by, above. Cheers, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)




 * Userfy this brand new article on a notable topic. Allow back when concerns for style, tone, format, and proper referencing have been addressed.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 23:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC) STRUCK  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Exploitation of women in mass media as this notable topic IS already being discussed elsewhere. Merge whatever is properly sourcable.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 08:48, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Exploitation of women in mass media - the title is different but the subject is the same. --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Article begins, "Throughout history, we have seen various portrayals...", but there is no inline citation.  Fails WP:WEBHOST, WP:NPOV, and WP:V.  Looking at the academic sources, fails WP:OR.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * And you feel that if (rightly) removed from mainspace as currently an unsuitable policy violation, and then returned to its author for sourcing and fixing, that there is absolutely no way his work might be corrected to serve the project?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 04:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest WP:Alternate outlets. Unscintillating (talk) 06:30, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Alternate outlets are fine, and I am not in any way suggesting that its current version remains in mainspace. I may be wrong, but I believe a draftspace is the proper place place for a new user to work and learn. Had his work then gone through WP:AFC, it would have been reviewed and the author sent to WP:MOS and cautioned about tone and format and sourcing... and it would certainly have never made it to article space until determined suitable. Is it your suggestion, based upon his first-ever six-edits, that inexperienced or new users are not allowed to work in draftspace?  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 10:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * My suggestion is to delete this article for multiple policy reasons, which is not a comment on other users. I also considered Userfy.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Question - Am I missing something? @, (et al.) why the talk of userfying, etc. when this clearly duplicates an existing article? It seems like the question is whether to (a) merge Exploitation of women in mass media into this article (which, although the other article has problems, this one has more problems), (b) merge this article into Exploitation of women in mass media, (c) delete and redirect this article if there's nothing salvageable, or (d) delete if there's nothing salvageable and if the capitalization of the title makes it too unlikely a target such that a redirect would be appropriate. I guess I'm just surprised nobody else has mentioned the other article, which makes me think I'm missing something? --&mdash;  Rhododendrites  talk  \\ 17:06, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The two articles would have different, if overlapping, focuses. This specific article, if rewritten in an encyclopedic manner, would focus on a general overview of the depiction of women in the media. The exploitation of women article summarizes the criticism of feminists and pro-women's rights activists against the objectification of women in media. Essentially, this article should be focused on a general thing, while the exploitation article focuses on specific criticism of that thing. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the titles do, but the scope of the content appears to be the same, and I think we should base !votes/discussion on the article rather than what title it happens to have. There's also Media and gender, by the way, which even the title nearly overlaps (but an inappropriate merge target given the content). --&mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:28, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OR. The topic may be notable, but it's highly unlikely that this essay could be whittled into anything useful for a real article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:55, 29 October 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.