Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:The Patriarchal Code

 __NOINDEX__
 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the discussion was Speedy Deleted as G7 by. — xaosflux  Talk  21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Draft:The Patriarchal Code


I am taking the bold step, under WP:BOLD of nominating this draft article an article which, in my and other reviewers' views will never, not ever be publishable here, for deletion. I accept that this may be an "out of process" nomination

I am nominating it as WP:COI, WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, as an essay, (see my comment below. Struck though in view of the newly shortened article 22:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)) and as something which could only be redeemed by use of WP:TNT. It has been the subject of much comment at Wikiproject Feminism, and the author is insisting on ploughing a lone furrow.

An additional reason for deletion is WP:NOTWEBHOST.

It is just possible, though marginal, that the underlying book of the research might be notable, but my thoughts are against it.

The entire hypothesis fails WP:N. It is an editor off on a frolic of self promotion in my view, promoting her life's work.

I would argue very strongly against userfication as an outcome. This is already in Draft: namespace. It needs to go. Fiddle  Faddle  15:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - The article is unsalvageable. This is for four reasons: (1) It's self-promotion of an idea whose sole notability is due to the author's own publication. (2) It's not written in anything resembling encyclopedic style, and the author's many, many edits to it show no sign of getting it any closer. (3) It's not about any actual thing external to the author's own esoteric conception of feminism. (4) Much of it is positively disprovable, especially the bits about etymology. I am insufficient of an expert to rebut other parts of it, but the author appears excessively fond of word games of the kind that would recast 'history' as 'herstory', in apparent ignorance of the fact that the 'histor-' stem long predates 'his' as a possessive pronoun. I endorse the opinion given recently on Twitter - I forget by whom, alas - that such tricksy language games are deeply colonialist, treating the entire world as though it speaks, and has always spoken, modern English. The author in this case is so afraid of the word 'woman' that she uses the neologism 'fem' instead throughout. This just isn't the way anyone - even other feminist authors - uses the English language. I'm all for critiques of patriarchy, but (A) this one is just dreadful and (B) this is an encyclopedia, not a blog or a publishing house. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * delete I concur with Alex. There are very few references that I found to this work - . It might be better to integrate the ideas from the book into Language_and_gender, using secondary sources that pull ideas from PC book towards this interpretation of language. The article however seems unsalvageable in it's current state, pure original research.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:OR. This editor could have written (1) an article about the book Breaking the Patriarchal Code, and used multiple book reviews or other published responses to the book as references, or (2) an article about the term "patriarchal code", who coined it, prominent writers or speakers who use the term and in what context, and support this with the many book references available which use this exact term.  However, this article is neither of these things.  It is instead an essay, in which the writer uses information from sources to support arguments and a point of view about what is good or bad for society or some of its members.  The essay itself may be of great value, but it is not a neutral summary of facts, as an encyclopedia should be, and would better be published in a magazine or journal, or posted on a personal website or in a repository for research documents and monographs. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 17:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I think another problem is, "The patriarchal code" is used in many reliable sources in many different ways - it seems to be used mostly to describe a sort of system of laws or norms or standards around patriarchy, or codes of behavior or conduct or what is acceptable. The book written by this author on the other hand is much more about "code" as cipher or hidden meaning that lurks within language, so there are multiple different uses of the term "patriarchal code" and to me, they seem quite different.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment That seems to be a title issue, or a lead section issue, where the distinction needs to be made. It's a valid point, and one which could be solved during this deletion discussion, but the primary focus for the author and others must be the lack of WP:N, which is a gating factor to retention. Fiddle   Faddle  18:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It may well be that the book is non-notable, but the term "patriarchal code" is not a neologism, and has been used in many published sources. I believe that it would be possible to write short, neutral article, summarizing reliable sources that discuss and use the term, that would pass WP:N. The problem I see is that this article is not like that, but is the author's interpretation and point of view, which is not encyclopedic. &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 19:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if "patriarchal code" as a phrase merits an article, since it is used in so many different ways, it's not really a coherent topic, it's more just a turn of phrase as far as I can tell from sources, although often than not it is used as a synonym for "patriarchy" or "gender norms".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 28 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as WP:OR unless you can find enough different uses of the phrase to make up an article that makes sense. You could then include your about your book in external links (assuming it's not self-published), or, should you get solid secondary sources, briefly in the text. If you think you have a solid theory, find a co-writer and rework it for the general public. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete I fully agree with Fiddle Faddle, AlexTiefling and Anne Delong. From the little information I could find about the book is seems to have been self published and I found no WP:RS reviews, commentary or criticism at all. Thus even if the draft were blown up and totally rewritten as an article about the book it would still not be notable as sufficient independent reliable sources simply do not exist. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 19:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete An essay and breaches WP:OR too.--Shakehandsman (talk) 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Seems to be some mostly made up theory, agree with the above, also article isn't neutral. -- ///Euro Car GT  20:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I believe that we should not invoke WP:SNOW because the author really should be heard. I feel this should run for the full period. Curtailing the discussion would, I feel, be inappropriate for a draft article where the author has a keen interest, COI or not. Fiddle   Faddle  21:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete - same reasons as all mentioned above Nz101 - Talk :: Contribs 03:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note, please, that I have copied the following comment form the talk page here. I believe we should interpret it as Keep. The comment follows: "There is too much to answer re Delete. I've cut the article down to a very small size and deleted the ref. to my book.  It simple describes what the "code" is and the patriarchal timeline that brought it about.  I will resubmit it on Monday.  LouiseGoueficLouise Goueffic (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)" This is a comment from the article's author and main (only?) contributor. The article is slimmed down substantially, as the history shows. I will consider this new version as nominator and determine how it affects my nomination. I ask other editors to do the same.  Fiddle   Faddle  22:30, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment As nominator I have now reconsidered the new, shortened draft article. I would now remove form my nominator the term 'essay', but that is the sole change I make. I have struck that material through, above. Fiddle   Faddle  22:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The current draft is so radically different from the version that was nominated that I think this MFD should be closed and the draft can go back through the AFC process. If anyone feels that it should still be deleted they should start a new nomination. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I find I am in two minds about your suggestion, a suggestion which is not invalid. However, when I look at the revised, much revised, draft, I find that it retains much of the original set of issues, albeit in substantially shorter form. I am genuinely ambivalent to continuing the MfD or to an early bold closure as "irrelevant to the current form of the article, kept with no precedent to keep in future or to immediate renomination" though I still see the article as all it states in my nomination as it stands today.
 * Because I am in two minds, I will Withdraw my nomination, conditional upon an immediate resubmission (by you?) of the article and an immediate review (not by me, I recuse myself form further reviews here). That may happen before or after the potential early closure of this discussion. I see that as the fairest possible approach to the very human needs of to see her draft treated fairly even though the topic is her own life's work and she has a conflict of interest. I recognise, however, that my withdrawing the nomination may be insufficient in view of the prior arguments for deletion. Editors should rememebr that we are dealing with a draft article here, and that such drafts are allowed space to breathe where there is a chance of their being accepted at some future date.  Fiddle   Faddle  09:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. As long as the draft is moving toward a neutrality and proper referencing, it shouldn't be deleted.  However, I would like to point out that by the time the draft is reduced to a factual condensation of "patriarchal code", it will no longer be about this editor's life's work; for an article to be included about that, her book or other publications would first have to be reviewed and cited in multiple independent news reports, books reviews, magazine or journal articles, etc.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 14:19, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I have much the same view as Anne re allowing it back to draft for further work. Having said that, I hold out very little hope of this becoming a stand-alone article. The term "patriarchal code" as it is used in this article, i.e. androcentric language (related to, but not necessarily the equivalent of sexist language), seems to be exclusively used by the author of the book. It is not an established term in sociolinguistic literature, and unless multiple references can be found to support the use of the term in this way, the article is not going to go anywhere. It is possible to write an article on Androcentric language, but it needs to be meticulously referenced to the major works in the field (and there are quite a few). The current short draft has now become somewhat incoherent, but retains its inappropriate campaigning tone, and the quote in the lede is actually a blurb for the book on which this article is based. It is in no way an indication of either the notability of the term or of the book. I also had a look at the draft before it was drastically cut, and found that there were some serious flaws in the research. If this is re-written, it needs to be re-titled and based on the established literature. Voceditenore (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Question Because we are in the Draft: namespace I am mindful of the author's needs today as well as Wikipedia's in the future. I believe the author deserves and needs clear guidance on whether this work will ever be acceptable. My view is that it can not be as it stands, but that the alternate title may hold water. However, I doubt at present that this author will be willing to create the more generic article. I do know that she cannot base her time here on a false (my view) hope that the article will ever be accepted, that would be torturing her. So how do we handle this, both in her best interests and in Wikipedia's? I realise this is unusual for a deletion discussion, but we are in unusual territory. Fiddle   Faddle  23:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fiddle, I'm assuming this is a general question (not just addressed to me), and it's a good one. My ultimate answer would be that out of fairness to the article's creator (User:Louise Goueffic) it should be deleted, unless she explicitly states in this MfD that she is prepared to write a completely different article on androcentric language under a completely different title with completely different sources. But the net result would still be deletion of the article she wanted to write. Even the current draft is so riddled with serious errors that virtually nothing is salvageable. Just three examples:
 * "The common Latin name 'manus', hand, 'us' suffix denoting male, was everyday currency before "The Manus" was put into law." No. The grammatical gender of "manus" in Latin is feminine (it's a 4th declension noun, and retains the feminine gender in the French, Italian, and Spanish words which are derived from it)
 * "The Hebrews give God the name Emmanuel, also as Immanuel,(el) the, 'manu' (God) (em/im) in (us)." No, it's not strictly the name for God, although it has been applied to Jesus and the morpheme which encodes "God" in that word is "el" (not "immanu" which encodes "with us"). I'm not sure on what basis she stated that "el" means "the", possibly a mistaken analogy with the Spanish word "el"?
 * "Systems of feudalism with slavery under the control of elite fathers as Lords, patriarchy, were practiced until about 1843 C.E., slavery until about 1950." No, slavery is still widely practiced today, despite being illegal, and the last country to make it illegal was Mauritania in 1981. Even then it was not made a criminal offense until 2007.
 * Voceditenore (talk) 09:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * It was a general question, and your answer is excellent. It seems that the article is really gymnastics. I still have withdrawn, but it was only ever a technicality. I will be content to renominate at once, unless you beat me to it on the basis of the article as it stands today. I cannot see how this work would withstand academic peer review, for example. Fiddle   Faddle  09:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Fiddle, I suggest that you simply strike through your "withdraw" above and perhaps add a note to your original nomination stating that it refers also to the current draft as well. In any case, even if the original nominator withdraws, it generally makes no difference to the outcome when there is an overwhelming consensus to delete by multiple editors. Voceditenore (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I could do that, but I think I will rely on the closing admin to see the wood from the trees. I woudl not feel good about flipflopping. I think I am correct to withdraw on the technicality, but I doubt it will affect the overall outcome. Fiddle   Faddle  09:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment See Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 72, WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk/Archives/2014 April 1, the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Wikipedia+talk%3AArticles+for+creation%2FThe+Patriarchal+Code deletion log] for Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Patriarchal Code (deleted 1 April 2014 WP:G11, WP:OR), and the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:The_Patriarchal_Code&oldid=602302032 first edit] dated April 1, 2014 of the page that is now at Draft:The Patriarchal Code. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment I have added several AFC comments to the now-greatly-trimmed draft. Unless an editor (any editor) surprises us and adds evidence that this topic meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, AND the page is rewritten into a coherent page that describes the topic in a way that reflects how reliable, independent sources report on it, it will not be accepted.  If the article is substantially the same in a week from 01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC) as it is now, you can put me down for "delete."  Otherwise, ping me and I'll give it another read-through.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  01:23, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment : It is distinctive subject. But the whole "Timeline" should be removed, dating are not backed by the sources. Everything else should be added to summary, and only sourced summaries should be added. I was also thinking if better title could be suggested. Idea of deletion should be avoided.  Occult Zone  ( Talk ) 10:37, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * OccultZone, I suggested an appropriate title for a completely new article above. Androcentric language is a distinctive subject widely covered in sociolinguistic academic literature . (all of which this draft ignores, possibly because much of it does not fit into her hypothesis/campaign). "Patriarchal code" in the sense it is used in the draft is not. It is a term invented by the author of the book on which the draft is currently based. When the term "patriarchal code" is used in academic literature it is almost invariably in reference to the laws of patriarchal societies, not to their language. Voceditenore (talk) 12:06, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * We already have Language_and_gender, which covers very similar ground.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually,Obi-Wan Kenobi, that article is primarily on gender differences in discourse as opposed to lexical and grammatical issues such as generic pronouns, markedness, the semantic derogation of words denoting or related to women, etc. The closest existing article that covers this area is Androcentrism. But androcentric language is a actually a very big subject on its own with multiple prominent scholars working in the area (for decades!). It could easily be a stand-alone article with a short summary paragraph and link in each of the two existing articles. But from the conversation at Draft talk:The Patriarchal Code, the creator does not seem prepared to write about anything but her own original research. So a proper article on androcentric language is rather moot at this point. Voceditenore (talk) 15:30, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Sidebar technical comment which applies to the pre-May 29 revisions but also possibly to later revisions: To the extent that the text is copied verbatim from a book or other existing source, it is presumed to be a copyright violation.  Due to the legal implications of being wrong, we cannot merely accept the claim that the editor is the author of the book when enforcing copyrights (this is the opposite of what we do for almost everything else, e.g. WP:COI, connected contributor, etc.). The editor should have gone through the one of the procedures outlined in Donating copyrighted materials.  Any editor wishing to create an article based largely on direct or near-direct quotes from previously-published materials should do the same.  In the case of this draft, it's not critical to address this "right now" since that the stuff that is presumably copied from the book is no longer in the current revision.  In any case, WP:SNOW says it's going to be a moot point soon, so, even assuming the current revision or any past revision contains previously-published material that was not previously freely licensed, there is no point in the editor starting the OTRS/donation process. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  19:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note the author has posted the following message on my talk page:
 * Hello, I have decided not to contribute an article to Wikipedia. Since there is such a hatred of the feminine in the world it is too easy for mischief makers to vandalize the site by isolating terms connected to others that cannot be connected on Wiki due to length of article. And then I would not be able to correct it - COI   Second, sites on Wiki have to be written by 'second' parties who have not put in 20 - 30 years examining and analyzing 10,000 names embedding male bias and have little knowledge of how the sum of names work to make the message of male superiority in divide to conquer ideology by which the whole species was damaged. Everyone is harmed in the language we use today.
 * "I worked from January to May on this article. I got criticisms of COI, too essay-ish, slotted as 'feminist', and assumed I was not a specialist in this specific area of language. I will prepare this work for a blog to put online. Blogs are as easily 'googled' as Wiki  articles."
 * "My work is not feminist. Feminism is a euphemistic put-down. In its final conclusions my whole work is in defense of reason, facts and truths needed to develop rational and moral society.LouiseGouefficLouise Goueffic (talk) 11:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC)"
 * I view it as confirming that this article will never be completed. Your mileage may vary. Fiddle   Faddle  12:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As Louise Goueffic has deleted all of the draft content, leaving only various templates, I have tagged it for speedy deletion under the G7 criteria. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 22:30, 7 June 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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.