Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airline sex discrimination policy

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. Many have also suggested a move to a more specific title. Sandstein (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Airline sex discrimination policy

Airline sex discrimination policy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Soapboxing article, with little if any encyclopediatic content. Soman (talk) 05:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete, thinly sourced rant. --Dhartung | Talk 06:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I've now properly labeled most of the sources - you can now see that the first reference for example is in fact a copy of a Times Newspaper article, so the article is actually rather well sourced. --Shakehandsman (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete as potential libel, since there has been no legal finding of discrimination. WillOakland (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR. Although the events are verifiable, the author(s) of the article have hand picked the incidents to be included in order to show some sort of a common link. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 14:23, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep There clearly is a common link as the airlines have very close ties (and closer ties around the times the policies were formed). Also the article is well sourced so disagree with Dhartung. I'm somewhat uncomfortable with the title however as it doesn't really describe the issue and is rather POV. So keep the article but with a more neutral title please - .--Shakehandsman (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

edit - if the title is changed as in line with many of the suggestions here I would say Strong keep for the content itself.

• Keep Article's references are in alignment with article. Perhaps article could be moved to better sounding title, but the title is accurate to the references. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong delete as per nom and SWik78. BWH76 (talk) 15:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep: Well-sourced article. It is not soapboxing, it is valid topic. But article should be moved to "Airline sex discrimination controversy", instead of using the word "policy". Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment, what's the definition of 'controversy' here really? --Soman (talk) 15:37, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
    • "Controversy" is controversy. Or wait, I have a better title - Sex discrimination in airlines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
      • • Comment, a controversy ought, to fulfill the meaning of the term, by controversial to some degree. I'm a man and do quite a lot of air travel, and I can't say that this policy, if it does exist, bothers me a single bit. Please see User:Shakehandsman's diatribes at Women's Aid Federation of England for some context of the pov-pushing of this guy, seeking to equate feminism with sexism. --Soman (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • I said the article is well sourced and the references support all the claims. Instead of using words like "controversy" or "policy", a good title would be Sex discrimination in airlines. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
          • Response I don't really see the relevance of Shakehandsman's POV or lack thereof on the Women's Aid Federation of England article. If this article is notable and NPOV then it's so regardless of his previous contributions. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
            • ResponseI really don't appreciate some of the comments made by Soman, particularly his suggestions as to what i am supposedly "seeking". Please see WP:AGF. How about discussing or improving content instead of attempting to remove large quantities of information completely? --Shakehandsman (talk) 14:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. Apparently well referenced, and certainly interesting though narrow in scope. Scope should be extended, e.g. by moving to sex discrimination against men. I am sure it will be easy to find a few other, similarly marginal examples, and perhaps even some really relevant ones. (Aren't there countries where homosexuality is legal for women, and punished with death for men, for example?) Merging into sexism is probably not an option because that would give undue weight to the topic or the article would have to be shortened too much. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I agree the scope is too narrow, though perhaps moving to sex discrimination against men would be too general and again it would end up shortened tremendouly. How about a compromise of "Corporate sex discrimination against men"? - thus allowing all government sponsored discrimination (eg pensions, benefits, families, gay rights etc) to have it's own article. Alternatively Otolemur crassicaudatus has a suggestion which is equally workable--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:51, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep possibly needs some more work, possibly needs merged, but a clearly notable subject IMO. These are reasons for mending not deleting. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:49, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Move per Otolemur crassicaudatus. It's sourced and seems like a valid topic. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• I stand by my original Delete recommendation as attempts to "improve" the article described would turn it into a synthesis of unrelated policies of unrelated airlines. WillOakland (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete Per WP:SOAP, WP:COATRACK and WP:OR Ijanderson977 (talk) 20:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: Could you please explain on what basis you are applying these policies in this article? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 20:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Can I suggest using the term "Seating" in the title in order to address eom people's concerns - e.g. "Airline Seating Discrimination"?
• Keep and probably rename or merge to one of the articles suggested above, though I'm not sure which. Needs to have some mention of the airline's response or a defense of their policy if such can be found - that should cover the worry of WP:SOAP. WP:OR seems to be demolished by the references, and I don't understand the claim of WP:COATRACK at all. Olaf Davis | Talk 21:10, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, but rename to "Sex discrimination in airlines" or something along those lines. Bad candidate for deletion, as it is well-sourced, verifiable and notable. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 23:00, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete based on current title and content. This may be a topic appropriate for coverage in Wikipedia, but not under this particular title -- not seating men next to unaccompanied children is hardly the airline sex discrimination policy. Given the past history of the airline industry with regard to sex discrimination (discrimination against women pilots, refusal to hire male flight attendants, restrictions against female flight attendants regarding age, height, weight, marriage, and pregnancy, plus sexualized treatment of flight attendants in advertising), the problems with airlines being overly suspicious of men who happen to be seated next to unaccompanied children would be unlikely to make the top ten list of problems of sex discrimination in the airline industry. That said, if this article were merged into a new Sex discrimination in the airline industry that focused primarily on the history of employment discrimination in the industry, it could be acceptable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:17, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep, per Olaf Davis. Clearly notable. Stifle (talk) 21:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep probably needs a better name, but a sourced and noticeable policy.-- danntm ^T _C 00:30, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Keep needs an NPOV name, but the article is well sourced and notable. --vi5in^[talk] 19:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Strong Keep but rename to something about seating policies. Article is backed up by nine reliable sources now. I must say that's a pretty bizarre policy and it the sort of the thing we ought to keep, and possibly add to a category about "moral panics". Was the first I'd heard of it. Squidfryerchef (talk) 22:41, 10 May 2008 (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.