Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conservative gender roles

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. Mailer Diablo 01:08, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conservative gender roles

I navigated to this page at random to help with clean-up work, as it was included on the "NPOV" list. As it stands, it is not a Wikipedia article at all, but a strongly POV political diatribe. I started to try to rewrite it in a more neutral manner. I Googled the term and only got 396 hits, almost all of them simply uses of the phrase in a discussion.

Upon due reflection, I don't think the phrase merits a separate entry, as it is not a subject different from "gender roles" and is already well-treated in the article of that name. It is not a distinct area of inquiry or knowledge, and treating the phrase with a NPOV appears to require that it be part of a more comprehensive article. Certainly, as it is written, it is unsalvagable; the article must be completely erased and rewritten if the title is kept. I started to do it, but felt (after trying to do some research) that the resulting article would have little if any intellectual value. Apollo 23:13, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - since it has something useful to say, but it needs a big cleanup. - Richardcavell 23:27, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - concept is valid but as Apollo says it really belongs in Gender roles#Gender roles and feminism - the contributor may consider expanding that section, if necessary. But the main reason this article needs deletion as it stands is that it sounds very POV and has virtually no sourcing Crum375
• Delete - nothing but POV characterization of people the author doesn't like. BigDT 00:07, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• delete topic is encylcopedic, but this is more of an OR essay. Recreation with documented sources tc is desirable. Pete.Hurd 01:05, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete ---|Newyorktimescrossword 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)|
• Delete - far too POV, no encyclopediac content at present. The term is used in scholarly papers and books, but I can't from the abstracts on Google scholar or the snippets on Google Book tell what, it means, or if it indeed means anything other than traditional gender roles. If it doesn't, "Traditional gender roles" would be a better title. GRBerry 02:31, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as crum. -- GWO
• Delete per above. Gender role page is FA and already covers the topic. — RJH 16:08, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per good reasoning by the nominator. DarthVader 13:09, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete essay of someone on a warpath. Pavel Vozenilek 20:33, 10 May 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.