Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's use of sexuality in the workplace


 * 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 of the debate was delete. bainer (talk) 05:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Closer's notes

The only argument for deletion was original research, which seemed to be rebutted by the keep votes, although they were in the minority. However, one source was misrepresented (it said nothing about sexuality in the workplace), one was an opinion piece from AskMen.com, one could not be accessed for verification, and the other (the only source in a reputable journal) was also misrepresented. Thus the deletes have it.

Women's use of sexuality in the workplace
Original research. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:04, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete You took the words out of my mouth --Bachrach44 18:07, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Per nom. It's nonsense as well. -^demon 18:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. it's not speediable as patent nonsense. here is criterion 1 from the WP:CSD page: "Patent nonsense, i.e. no meaningful content, unsalvageably incoherent page. This does not include: poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, badly translated material, implausible theories or hoaxes." this page should be deleted, but it does not qualify for speedy deletion.--Alhutch 18:27, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not nonsense, but it IS original research, and that's a no-no. Mo0 [ talk ] 18:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom. --Aurochs (Talk | Block)
 * The article cites 6 sources that apparently deal with this subject. How, exactly, is this original research? Uncle G 00:50, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * would you agree that it's rather opinionated?--Alhutch 01:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion when there are 6 sources (and probably more) to work from. Uncle G 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article cites 6 sources. I've checked out 4 of them, and not only are they all reliable sources and independent from one another, they even back up everything that the article says, pretty much exactly.  "Original research", my eye!  Keep. Uncle G 01:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * here's a quote from the article: "As a word of advice to all women in the workplace, using your sexuality to attempt to get ahead in your profession is not a good idea. It will get you nowhere in your professional life and you will just lose respect in turn." it doesn't sound very encyclopedic to me, no matter how many sources it cites.--Alhutch 01:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The article asserts that women are using their sexuality to get ahead in the workplace, which is an inherently POV statement. see WP:NPOV.--Alhutch 01:54, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I repeat: Non-neutrality is not a reason for deletion when there is an abundance of sources to work from. If you look in the toolbox you will find tools to deal with exactly this sort of thing.  None of the ones to use here involve deletion. Please familiarize yourself with the tools in the toolbox.  Uncle G 01:57, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact that this has sources, I think it qualifies as original research because it synthesizes these sources into a new idea, which is not generally agreed upon. This is from WP:OR: something is original research if "it introduces a theory or method of solution; or it introduces original ideas." I think that the idea that women are using their sexuality to get ahead in the workplace is POV first of all, and that it is original research because it is a "new idea". Of course, you are entitled to your opinion, and I to mine. :-)Alhutch 05:44, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Rubbish. It doesn't synthesize the sources into a new idea at all.  It presents the sources almost in their very own words. Read what the sources say and compare them with the article.  This isn't a novel synthesis, nor, given the fact that the sources said it before the Wikipedia article, is it a new idea. Uncle G 12:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete UncleG's comments are way off line. This is patently original research.  And quoting other OR doesn't make it any less so. You can't just throw down some footnotes and pretend they somehow make an idea objective.  Oh, it's also unencyclopedic Eusebeus 07:45, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, rubbish. If it's "quoting other OR", in this case 6 different reliable sources that are independent of one another, it clearly cannot be original research.  If you think that something is original research because it merely isn't objective, then you don't understand what original research is.  It has nothing to do with objectivity.  Please read the policy and refresh your memory of what original research is.  Indeed, if you think that the way to deal with a copiously sourced article that isn't neutral is to delete it, then you should read some of our other policies, too.   Deletion isn't the only tool in the toolbox, and this article is not a nail. Uncle G 12:36, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Not really. The fact is that providing sources and references to help readers decide whether your claims can be substantiated does not relieve it of the burdens of OR. If this was simply the pat repetition of what those articles said, it would only be OR once removed.  But the sources it provides are by way of backing up an argument.  Which is POV and OR. How is this hard to see?? Eusebeus 15:46, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Again, you don't understand what original research actually is. Please read the policy and refresh your memory, as I asked before. If there are reliable sources demonstrating that the concept has gained traction, as is indisputably the case here (There are 6 reliable and mutually independent sources &mdash; journal articles, newspaper features, AP articles &mdash; dating back to 1997.) it isn't original research. Uncle G 18:39, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Keep. This is a horrible article, biased, tendentious and badly written, but I reluctantly have to agree with Uncle G that it has some real sources (though it abuses them) and that we should try the other tools before deletion. Unless someone has the energy to do the research, however, it will remain in this NPOV state and may merit deletion somewhere down the road. Possibly rename to "Sexuality in the Workplace", which is an active research area and seems to have plenty of worthwhile discussions . rodii 14:04, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, though it pains me. This article needs a lot of work, but it's not just original research.  We need some people to work on it, not just shuffle it off. -- Dpark 23:33, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * P.S. UncleG is right, by the way.  Being biased is not the same thing as original research.  If someone comes along and says "women are all sluts in the workplace", then it's original research. If, instead they say, "women are sluts in the workplace, according to SOMEVALIDSOURCEGOESHERE", then it's probably biased, but not original research. -- Dpark 23:37, 8 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep per Dpark. Stifle 00:56, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought"; "Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine". This entire article is replicated in the original writer's profile and is manifestly an opinion piece. Sleepypanda
 * There are sources on this subject cited in the article that date back for the past 8 years. This is manifestly not original thought. Uncle G 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete: original research, low encyclopedic value, high potential for edit wars. Pavel Vozenilek 22:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * agreed.--Alhutch 22:41, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Please explain how, given the existence of copious sources that address the very same topic in the very same way, you came to the conclusion that this is original research. Also, "high potential for edit wars" is not a reasonable reason for deletion.  If it were, Communism would have been deleted long since. Uncle G 00:55, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete this doesn't make any sense...  Grue   16:11, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, NOR, difficult NPOV.--nixie 09:51, 12 December 2005 (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.