Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Women's Logic

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. Royboycrashfan 12:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Women's Logic

This appears to be sexist rambling with no encyclopedic content, probably POV pseudo-fork of Sexual differentiation. Peter Grey 04:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

There are references to scientific theories contrasting the different outlooks of the world shared by men and women. --Celendin 04:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. To the (limited) extent this is not POV/OR, it should go in Gender differences. Sandstein 04:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per I vote to delete anything that makes my head hurt. T K E 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete pseudo-scientific "theories" of one person (read "rambling opinions"). No knowledge, but appears to be flamebait Dananderson 05:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'd be all for an article that seriously covers the subject of differences between male and female perceptions and interpretations of the world around them, but this article is too flawed to be even a starting point for that --Icarus 05:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • How do you suggest we start one then? --Celendin 06:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Take a look at gender differences and sexual differentiation for starters. Peter Grey 06:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Barely scientific, heavily POV. --Soumyasch 05:24, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as unencyclopedic drivel. dbtfz^talk 05:32, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete logiccruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Pointless article - I learnt nothing new about the subject as a result of reading this. WP:NPOV violation for sexism.  (aeropagitica)  06:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Violation of WP:NPOV policy and more of an essay than an article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Wow. Delete, delete, delete. Unencyclopedic nonsense. --Simoes 06:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. This article is way more irrational and given to pointlessness than any woman I've known recently. It's odd because the author appears to be an otherwise very upstanding editor. Grandmasterka 08:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as original research, POV rant, and bad joke. JIP | Talk 09:35, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why everyone is reacting so badly to this article. "Women's Logic" is a term, it is a noun just like "encyclopedia" or "the internet". If you google the term, beyond some joke pages made to ridicule women, you will find serious discussions on how women and men in general approach situations differently. There are entire businesses which sell products catered to help men understand "Women's Logic" so that Men can become more successful with Women; Women's Logic is a thing which evidently most men don't understand. The Dating Wizard: Understanding Women's Logic. I wasn't trying to be rude or sexist, I started this article to try and bridge the gap between the male understanding of the world and the female's understanding of the world. Evidently, since most people refer the world as a man's world, there is a large disparity between the sexes. Gender Differences primarily focuses on physcial differences this article could focus on mental differences between the sexes. --Celendin 10:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• There is an implication that irrational behaviour is a function of faulty logic. It's not. Women know perfectly well when they are being illogical, just the same as men. Why a man or woman might choose to behave illogically, and why that behaviour might be successful, is something completely different. Peter Grey 10:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
  • But that is not really a reason to delete the article. The implication of "faulty logic" is a POV shared by many men, but it isn't really a reason why we shouldn't describe "Women's Logic."
    • Try this, then. Wikipedia isn't a blog, a bulletin board or a soapbox. (WP:NOT) This rambling entry doesn't belong in a factual encyclopedia. Delete. RGTraynor 15:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• By creating an article solely about women you’ll assuming that being a man is natural and that women are an oddity. A nearly %50-%50 split in birth rates doesn't support this. Your also assuming that male psychology is easy to see and trivial.

You uncritically accept Ancient Greek views of women. The ‘Women's Logic applied to Dating doesn't fit with hard research into hunter gatherers. You also say most women would support Mede killing her children but offer no support.

• The article isn't even about logic, it's about motivations and behaviour. There are plenty of articles covering gender-based differences. Peter Grey 11:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. There may be several pages where bits and pieces of this material might be merged to: no doubt references for most of these beliefs are out there. But this article seems a blunderbuss shot of pop-culture clichés about the difference between the sexes, assembled under a silly title. That would seem to make it original research. Smerdis of Tlön 14:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Yes, there is a bit of worthwhile content here, once it is described as a POV and not simply asserted as a fact, but it belongs in other articles. One might as well write an article about "Men's Logic". --Saforrest 15:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• The phrase "help men understand 'Women's Logic' so that Men can become more successful with Women" is offensively sexist. If you don't understand why, you won't understand why I'm voting Delete with prejudice. Vizjim 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

In fairness, I think Celendin was arguing that this organizations which purport to describe "women's logic" are examples of a phenomenon which exists and therefore merits an article, not that thie article should itself help men become more successful with women. On the other hand, the article was not written with that sort of distance from the subject in mind. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete The title and subject of this article are inherently biased. You can’t talk about women’s logic with out comparing them to men. I'd say merge with Sexual differentiation if there was anything accurate worth merging. Seano1 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, or better yet, redirect to Misogyny. Misogynistic essay, horrendously POV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:07, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not changing my delete vote, but I think the pendulum has come a bit too far here. Certainly this article is biased and absurd, but the phenomenon it is attempting to describe -- that many men today regard women as having a unique and irrational style of reasoning -- is a real one, and does deserve to be mentioned somewhere. This idea is the reason for the success of garbage like Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus. --Saforrest 19:23, 7 April 2006 (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.