Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women and Men


 * 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The result was keep (nom withdrawn and no delete votes). (non-admin closure) Edgepedia (talk) 12:08, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Women and Men

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Delete due to lack of notability in accordance with WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG, which requires significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. Initially redirected to author was reverted. Cindy ( talk to me ) 22:07, 16 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 23:48, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I respect where the nomination came from - the article is badly written (rather ironic, given it's about a book) and the attitude Cindy copped while trying to fix this and another related article was pretty poor form and definitively not good faith. That said, there are a number of sources that could be cited (and would have been, I imagine, had the original author met the burden of proof)-
 * LeClair, Tom - The Art of Excess: Mastery in Contemporary American Fiction (University of Illinois Press, 1989) - has a chapter dedicated to this book specifically.
 * McHale, Brian - Constructing Postmodernism (Routledge, 1993) - also has a chapter on the book in question.
 * Tabbi, Joseph - Postmodern Sublime: Technology and American Writing from Mailer to Cyberpunk (Cornell University Press, 1996) - includes a few paragraphs on the book.
 * Ziegler, Heide Facing Texts: Encounters Between Contemporary Writers and Critics (Duke University Press, 1988) - as above with a more detailed analysis of the characters of the book.
 * There seems to be a review from the New York Times in 1975 but beyond a basic google result, I can't find the text of the review itself. What I have been able to find is way too small to be read (in a reprint) so I can't actually tell what it says. That said, the fact that there was a review by the NYT (regardless of whether it was positive or negative) suggests they considered it notable enough to review. Would be keen to get a readable copy.
 * Also helpful (though not as a source I would think) is the Webster's Encyclopaedia of Literature entry for McElroy which includes his books (with proper titles) to help with searches.
 * Editors should be aware that there is also an expert on the studies of "women and men" named McElroy and her work does tend to pop up in search results - be careful you have the right one if you're searching for more sources.
 * Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 06:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Great job on finding this information! Thanks... Cindy  ( talk to me ) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, just wish it could have been resolved without this outburst. Disappointing. Cheers, Stalwart 111  (talk) 00:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC).
 * Yeah, I agree that it was disappointing, but I don't tend to let things like that bother me. Editing Wikipedia will always bring us into contact with different and difficult personalities. I can't control that, but I can (hopefully) manage my response in a positive manner. Thanks again for your help here. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 01:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - I found two reliable sources -- The Los Angeles Times and Chicago Review -- for McElroy's Women and Men and added them to the story. I also added an infobox book template. AuthorAuthor (talk) 09:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn. I've added the sources to the article, which have been provided by Stalwart111 above. At this point, the subject clearly meets the notability guidelines in accordance with WP:GNG. Cindy  ( talk to me ) 00:15, 18 September 2012 (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.